On 10/31/2014 08:00 AM, Nicolas B. Pierron wrote:
> On 10/31/2014 06:48 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>
>> I'm interested in knowing how people feel about these "hidden hg"
>> tools. Is
>> going through a hidden, local hg bridge seamless? Satisfactory? Barely
>> tolerable? A horrible pain point? (I noticed some of the hg
>> interactions in
>> moz-git-tools aren't optimal. If these are important tools, please
>> ping me
>> off list so I can help you improve them.)
>
> This is a pain point is when you have to push, I often forget to push
> something just because it takes too much time to update the hg
> repository, and that I already switched to work on something else.
Several people have mentioned how they have to wait a long time for the
hg update. I sort of assumed everyone had cron jobs to periodically pull
hg repos. Why would you want to pay the full update cost at the worst
possible moment?
This isn't really necessary, but I have a bunch of local repos and I
don't want to cron-pull them all separately. So I have an 'upstream'
repo that pulls hourly (no need to update the working directory). Most
of my other repos are cloned from it and therefore pull updates from it.
I have cron jobs that hg relink all of my other repos to the upstream
repo, and a shell function 'pullup' that cd's to the upstream repo and
updates it. So before landing I'll run pullup, which will pull down at
most an hour's worth of changes (and often none, given how often the
tree is closed) and then hg pull --rebase or hg pull then rebase
(depending on whether I'm feeling in an mq mood or not).
The exact pullup function is
function pullup () {
( cd $(hg path default) && hg pull )
}
which is handy if you have different notions of "upstream" for different
repos.
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
