durin42 added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D5744#85436, @spectral wrote: > In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D5744#85051, @yuja wrote: > > > I agree with that we would never set the `commands.commit.interactive.{...}` > > in hgrc, but the feature itself is useful if you have to work on unclean > > codebase unlike in Google. For example, I sometimes need to commit changes > > ignoring unrelated whitespace cleanups made by editor or code formatter, > > because I can't control the development workflow. > > > > That's why I thought there would be users relying on the current behavior. > > > I think I understand what you're saying. I was under the impression that what we cared about was that `hg record -b` should continue working. Since there are no diffopts available on `hg commit -i`, you're thinking that this could be written as `hg commit -i --config commands.commit.interactive.ignorews=1`. > > While I'm sympathetic to that argument, it is so long and unwieldy that I think I'd recommend that users just do `hg --config extensions.record= record -b` (or, more likely, set `[extensions] record=` in their hgrc). > > I'll send the other patch series, we can discuss this on the relevant patches instead of keeping most of the discussion in a (somewhat unrelated) patch. I've sent https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D5832-D5834 with the config option approach, and still have D5877-D5878 as the "only respect commandline args" approach. In the name of getting things landed, I rearranged -committed so this change is now tip. I'll try and look at the new series soon. Sorry for breaking a clever workflow. :/ REPOSITORY rHG Mercurial REVISION DETAIL https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D5744 To: spectral, #hg-reviewers Cc: durin42, yuja, navaneeth.suresh, mercurial-devel _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
