durin42 added a comment. durin42 accepted this revision as: durin42.
In D8030#118489 <https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8030#118489>, @martinvonz wrote: > In D8030#118480 <https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8030#118480>, @durin42 wrote: > >> I'm conflicted on rolling the `uncopy && amend` action into the uncopy command like this. Could users not (without this patch) do `hg uncopy foo && hg amend`? > > I don't think so, because it's not marked as a copy in the working copy, right? Oh. Ew. I'm really not sure how I feel about that, but it does feel like this change is probably the best path forward. I'm out of time to review today (need to go make supper), but I'm at least +0 on this patch... REPOSITORY rHG Mercurial CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8030/new/ REVISION DETAIL https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8030 To: martinvonz, #hg-reviewers, durin42 Cc: durin42, mercurial-devel _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
