From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: eekee57@fastmail.fm (Ethan Grammatikidis) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:48:50 +0000 Subject: [9fans] drawterm bug In-Reply-To: References: <6a7e42f7236652d4761e22c1159e92db@ladd.quanstro.net><6223ef47198082d6b74693b16a82846b@ladd.quanstro.net> Message-ID: <1301082530.30065.1433892565@webmail.messagingengine.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: c10c0288-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:02 -0500, "Jeff Sickel" wrote: > > On Mar 22, 2011, at 12:51 PM, erik quanstrom wrote: > > >> back in the right order. Needs work, well, time, it takes time. > > > > hey, wait a second ... i thought that was the whole point of hg, > > to save time. :-) > > It does, as long as you don't use certain extensions. > > > there were some definate gotchas > > - hg diff doesn't do the right thing with a patch queue. > > - hg qpush is terribly misnamed; and hg push --mq is just a poke in the eye. > > - bitbucket tracks qupdate not qcommit. i don't understand this. > > Cloning and not using quilted patch queues does man you can work along in > your branch of code as needed. Flush out a change, diff it w/ someone > other revision/tip/repository and go to town. Export the changes > upstream and it is a bit easier, even push them. I've just not taken the > time to fully grok the way Bitbucket and a few others use mq. > > Too much complexity triggers the trap. What on Earth is a quilted patch queue? I always thought the whole point of using a drcs was that you could work in your own branch. I've only used a drcs once, but everyone had their own branch there & it went pretty smoothly.