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.

In D10014#151711, @mharbison72 wrote:

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.

/!\ This change is destined for the stable branch

In D10010#151796, @SimonSapin wrote:

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.

FWIW, I've never had a patch fail to get the stable branch tag on Phab after a phabsend.

/!\ This patch and the next are destined for the stable branch /!\

In D9972#151015, @SimonSapin wrote:

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!