[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mercurial-devel
Subject:    Re: [PATCH] amend: preserve phase of amended revision (issue3602)
From:       Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david () ens-lyon ! org>
Date:       2012-08-31 22:19:57
Message-ID: 85C4219C-8DC7-4A2B-9624-01596AA4FADC () ens-lyon ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


On 1 sept. 2012, at 00:05, Simon King wrote:

> On 31 Aug 2012, at 21:21, Augie Fackler <raf@durin42.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On Aug 31, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Idan Kamara wrote:
> > 
> > > > > A quick test reveals that graft doesn't copy phase info too.
> > > > 
> > > > But graft is about "copying the diff of another changeset as new commit".
> > > > It is  the same kind of operation than a plain new commit. So, graft honor
> > > > current phase config *by design*.
> > > 
> > > Unless an explicit phase is specified when grafting, it seems to me like it
> > > should use the phase of the source commit. Same thing when rebasing,
> > > which already seems to preserve the phase.
> > > 
> > > I don't see a reason for --amend to behave differently.
> > 
> > I agree with Idan, I don't see why graft or rebase should change the phase of a \
> > commit.
> 
> This is probably a silly question, but what happens if you rebase a draft commit \
> onto a secret commit? Does it promote the secret commit to draft? 
> Another consideration is that you can graft a public commit, but you can't rebase \
> it. Should grafting a public commit onto a draft one cause the draft to become \
> public? That would seem surprising.

No, if parent phases is *never* changed by such commit creation.

-- 
Pierre-Yves David
_______________________________________________
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@selenic.com
http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]