Thu, Feb 25
Wed, Feb 24
Tue, Feb 23
I'm waiting for the "next patch" mentioned in the commit message before this can be accepted, since the behavior changed from an abort to a silent omission of valid data, which is a regression.
Is if foo == False valid in this case? I probably got my wires crossed with is None. (I'm fine with the code change here, just wondering for future reference.)
I think I'd rather we also delete the docket file(s) and transaction files if we can, but this would not be a blocker for this patch in particular to land.
Mon, Feb 22
Fri, Feb 19
/!\ This change is destined for the stable branch
Alright, let’s try this: https://foss.heptapod.net/octobus/mercurial-devel/-/pipelines/18143
What’s a good workflow when I also have additional patches to add on top of the stack?
/!\ CI failed for this change after you last updated.
Thu, Feb 18
FWIW, I've never had a patch fail to get the stable branch tag on Phab after a phabsend.
Mon, Feb 15
Sun, Feb 14
Fri, Feb 12
Thu, Feb 11
Wed, Feb 10
/!\ This patch and the next are destined for the stable branch /!\
Tue, Feb 9
Yes, when typing that hg cp command I thought that this copy record isn’t wrong since that’s indeed how the new file started. Is there a reason to prefer *not* having that recorded as a copy?
It looks like you've recorded copy information about rust/rhg/src/commands/root.rs and rust/rhg/src/commands/config.rs. Was that on purpose?
I see that tests are added in the next patch, which makes sense considering we've avoided needing config so far.
I saw that you updated the code, looks good to me!