I would be nice to have test but I assume this is hard. The description seems clear so I trusting Kyle on this one.
Looks good. Thansk for the fix. I assume this should go on stable?
This patch seem (embarrassedly) right.
Mon, Feb 17
I've a couple of high level question:
Sat, Feb 15
Fri, Feb 14
Simple clear effective. Thanks for splitting
looks good to me. thanks for plitting
As per comment of Pulkit and I on D7730, please spin this test toward forbiding the prune while the rebase is in progress.
I think is would be simpler and sfare to prevent unrelated operation during rebase. If the user cannot prune here we won't have to deal with it. This woudl also apply to other operation that can alter the repository, like another rebase, amend or a pull. Starting using a unified and safe approach seems to provide more benefit with less chance of UI inconsistency.
I agree. We should disallow prune if an unfinished operation exists.
There don't seems to be any remaininf feedback on this.
Thu, Feb 13
As explained in this comment https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8030#120771 I find the idea of usign a changeset in place of the working copy interresting. However, this is a larger big UX change that seems to deserve a wider discussion with more of the community involved. In particular I am not convinced about the --rev flag usage.
The change seesm good to me. However kevincox proposal to use #[cfg(test)] for pad_node seems worth applying inflight.
For future reference, I'm going to add it here, but if you're going to the trouble of uploading a new revision, it would have been nice to do this and save reviewer toil.
The UI seems good, but it seems like we should have --dry-run supports and I find the help text confusing (I made improvement suggestion).
This is supposed to be a graft of something already accepted on default. So unless I did a mistake on the graft (cc @Alphare for checking) any feedback on this also apply on the default one.
Wed, Feb 12
phabricator seems to be very confused about the performance number formatting…
INTENDED FOR STABLE
INTENDED FOR STABLE
Tue, Feb 11
It looks like this series is introducing UI change of the same kind as the one @martinvonz is looking into for hg copy. I'll try to have a look at both of them tomorrow.
Mon, Feb 10
More throughful benchmarking has arrived.
Here are quick performance number on our mozilla-try reference:
Sat, Feb 8
The feature is great (I actually needs it from time to time) and the code looks good.