xemacs repo: a lot of anonymous branches: evolve: add named branches

[Uwe Brauer]

Hi

I just digged a bit in the history of the xemacs repository in bitbucket.

https://bitbucket.org/xemacs/xemacs

It turns out that there are tons of anonymous branches.

Just do a

hg log | grep 9624523604c5

Or

hg log -G | grep 9624523604c5

And see for yourself.

This is a public repository (and goes back to 2007 a time where
mercurial maybe did have bookmarks nor named branches).

Is there any possibility, with the evolve extension to change these
anonymous branches to named branches??

I presume this is impossible because it is a public repository,
nevertheless I am curious.

Thanks

Uwe Brauer

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello, Uwe.

Post by Uwe Brauer
Hi
I just digged a bit in the history of the xemacs repository in bitbucket.
https://bitbucket.org/xemacs/xemacs
It turns out that there are tons of anonymous branches.
Just do a
hg log | grep 9624523604c5
Or
hg log -G | grep 9624523604c5
And see for yourself.
This is a public repository (and goes back to 2007 a time where
mercurial maybe did have bookmarks nor named branches).
Is there any possibility, with the evolve extension to change these
anonymous branches to named branches??
I presume this is impossible because it is a public repository,
nevertheless I am curious.

It's also a project which, while maybe not yet pushing up the daisies,
is not in the rudest of health, either. (For non-native English
speakers, it's nearly dead.)

So why spend time and effort on such a non-vigorous project? I'm
curious, too.

Post by Uwe Brauer
Thanks
Uwe Brauer

[Uwe Brauer]

Post by Alan Mackenzie
Hello, Uwe.
It's also a project which, while maybe not yet pushing up the daisies,
is not in the rudest of health, either.

I know :'( I contributed for several years to one of their package and
I recall very vividly the death message of Steven Turnbull.

Post by Alan Mackenzie
(For non-native English speakers, it's nearly dead.)

Nicely put ;-).




But there seems an attempt to recover (at least there are commits every
second day or so, although better not to tell how many contributers
do commit.....)

Post by Alan Mackenzie
So why spend time and effort on such a non-vigorous project? I'm
curious, too.

In this particular case: I had an very old (non official) patch, which I
needed to apply every time I wanted to compile the whole beast. So at the
end I got curious and searched for the version the patch was against.

Well and then I discovered the mess and became, let's put it this way,
academically interested in the question.


Uwe

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

Post by Uwe Brauer

Post by Alan Mackenzie
So why spend time and effort on such a non-vigorous project? I'm
curious, too.

In this particular case: I had an very old (non official) patch, which I
needed to apply every time I wanted to compile the whole beast. So at the
end I got curious and searched for the version the patch was against.
Well and then I discovered the mess and became, let's put it this way,
academically interested in the question.

Also "I care for it" is a pretty good reason in itself.

Best wishes,
Arne

[Bryan Murdock]

Post by Uwe Brauer
Is there any possibility, with the evolve extension to change these
anonymous branches to named branches??

Sure, create the named branch, rebase the anonymous branch onto the
named branch. Note that this would change the hash for each commit
that was rebased.

Post by Uwe Brauer
I presume this is impossible because it is a public repository,

It would definitely cause some confusion, most especially for those
not using evolve :-)

Bryan

[Augie Fackler]

Post by Bryan Murdock

Post by Uwe Brauer
I presume this is impossible because it is a public repository,

It would definitely cause some confusion, most especially for those
not using evolve :-)

It also wouldn’t work because evolve doesn’t let you do anything interesting to public-phase changes. Once things are published in public phase, they’re more or less permanent unless you take dramatic steps that involve everyone in your community taking some action.

[Uwe Brauer]

It also wouldn’t work because evolve doesn’t let you do anything
interesting to public-phase changes. Once things are published in
public phase, they’re more or less permanent unless you take
dramatic steps that involve everyone in your community taking some
action.

That is what I assumed and feared (makes some sense though: this is not
git)