smf added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2873#52100, @indygreg wrote: > In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2873#52025, @smf wrote: > > > In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2873#52021, @indygreg wrote: > > > > > Looks good! > > > > > > I'm very heavily against this direction. Changing the behavior of push (even in this extension) is something I've always considered outside the scope of remotenames. Having another extension that changes push behavior (e.g. bookmark-push) is where I think this should go so that remotenames is just that: keeping track of remote names. > > > I think there's room for this feature to live outside of remotenames. But currently I think it is the best place for it, since remotenames is the closest thing we have to... tracking remote names. We can always alias the old config option in the future if we move this functionality elsewhere. One of the biggest regrets I have about the original remotenames, is the modifying of push (and some default) behavior. The `--to` is small enough (and I guess fine enough) for now but I absolutely and strongly believe that all the other behavior modifications should stay in an out-of-core repo for now. My goal is to split my remotenames repo to be based off of core's remotenames (basically only having the behavior changing patches there). REPOSITORY rHG Mercurial REVISION DETAIL https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2873 To: pulkit, #hg-reviewers, indygreg Cc: smf, indygreg, mercurial-devel _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
