On Mon 18 Jun 2007 at 04:03PM, Mike Kupfer wrote:
> >>>>> "Rich" == Richard Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Rich> I certainly can't think of a solution I'd be happy with that
> Rich> doesn't involve change to Mercurial, at least right now.
>
> Rich> If we're changing mercurial in the first place, there's also
> Rich> having 'hg merge' record its present state, and pick up where it
> Rich> left off, too. (and refuse a commit while it's state file
> Rich> exists).
>
> Are we talking about things we want, but which can wait until after
> we've moved the gate to Mercurial? Or are these showstoppers for the
> migration? I think they're things we want soon, but they aren't
> stoppers. Anyone disagree?
I think I'd highly desire documentation for how to workaround this
issue for project gatekeepers, before the cutover.
It might also be good to poll the gatekeepers of large running projects.
-dp
--
Daniel Price - Solaris Kernel Engineering - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - blogs.sun.com/dp
_______________________________________________
tools-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
