Danek Duvall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [forgot to Cc the list, sorry about you getting this twice Danek]
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 06:33:04PM -0700, mike cheng wrote: > >> Do we have a plan porting "wx backup" "wx restore" to mercurial? Or >> Mercurial already has this feature? > > Mercurial lets you extract one or more changesets into a wad called a > bundle. See "hg help bundle" for the details. It doesn't do any of the > version management that wx backup does, though. > > You can also use mq for this sort of thing -- set up your patch queue with > qinit -c, and clone the patch queue wherever you like. Though this way you > may end up with more versioning in your backup system, depending on how > often you run hg qcom. > Don't use Mq with our tools. It should be safe to do (in that they'll bail out and yell at you at the important junctures), but it isn't, to my knowledge, being done, so there could be gaps. Webrev, certainly, doesn't work happily in an Mq-shaped world (where both parent and child have patches applied, anyway) > My take is we don't need backup/restore, at least at first. If people > clamor for it and don't find the alternatives workable (if not better!) > then they can be ported. I actually just asked a couple of people right now, given I got mid-way through replying to this before I remembered I hadn't actually decided what to do. My take is close to Danek's, beyond thinking it maybe best to implement it over bundles (and only bundles) to provide the version management. This would mean it didn't back up in progress change (but would warn you that it wasn't), and thus that you'd have to commit anything you'd want to backup. I assume people do tend to have checked in what they intend to back up anyway? -- Rich _______________________________________________ tools-discuss mailing list [email protected]
