On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 11:53:26PM +0900, Samuel Masham wrote:
>
> > One exception is when you have a clone of a repo where you are doing
> > experimental changes. You might use mq to help maintain a cherry picked
> > set of patches for pushing back into the main tree. But, this is still
> > more of the SM maintainer situation.
>
> Where this case differs from the SM only case is that this repository
> is then used as a basis for more developers.
>
> In my specific case the kernel I patch is then intended to be used as
> the bases for other peoples work. I would like to offer them a normal
> hg experience
Ah, ok. The perfect usage model for this is difficult to see, but it is
definitely a valid usage. The mq repo on serpentine.com is one example,
and the end user experience is a little...odd.
If everyone using your repo is mq aware, they can include push/pop in
their update process. I think this would be ideal, they pull both the
l-k repo and your patches repo and push/pop normally.
But, please feel free to experiment ;)
-chris
|
