martinvonz added inline comments. INLINE COMMENTS
> test-stack.t:81 > + | > + o 3 foo draft c_d > + | What if this was @ in the hg repo and only commits 4 and 5 were my own, then I would not want it to be part of my stack. It feels like a definition of upstream would be very helpful. Perhaps a way of providing a separate upstream per commit would be useful. Let's say upstream() was a revset, then I feel like something like "only(., upstream(.))" would be my stack. Of course, it gets weird if I have a history like we have here and I have defined the upstream of 4 to be 2 and the upstream of 5 to be 3 (or the other way around). I guess only commits that share an upstream can be part of the same stack. > test-stack.t:96-108 > + @ 6 foo draft c_d > + | > + | * 5 foo draft c_f > + | | > + | * 4 foo draft c_e > + | | > + | x 3 foo draft c_d I think I would have preferred to see all of these in my stack rather than just commit 6. Would you? REPOSITORY rHG Mercurial REVISION DETAIL https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2396 To: lothiraldan, #hg-reviewers, indygreg Cc: martinvonz, yuja, indygreg, mercurial-devel _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
