martinvonz added a comment.
In D8030#118542 <https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8030#118542>, @durin42 wrote: > 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... I've started to think that the working copy should really be a commit and I find that helpful. If you think about it that way, it makes sense that `hg uncopy foo` (or more explicitly `hg uncopy -r 'wdir()' foo` unmarks copies in the working copy and `hg uncopy -r <some other commit> foo` unmarks copies in some other commit. 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
