-----------------------------------------------------------
Terminology of the obsolete concept
-----------------------------------------------------------
Obsolete markers
---------------------------------
The mutable concept is based on **obsolete markers**. Creating an obsolete
marker registers a relation between an old obsoleted changeset and its newer
version.
Old changesets are called **precursors** while their new versions are called
**successors**. A marker always registers a single *precursor* and:
- no *successor*: the *precursor* is just discarded.
- one *successor*: the *precursor* has been rewritten
- multiple *successors*: the *precursor* were splits in multiple
changesets.
.. The *precursors* and *successors* terms can be used on changeset directy:
.. :precursors: of a changeset `A` are changesets used as *precursors* by
.. obsolete marker using changeset `A` as *successors*
.. :successors: of a changeset `B` are changesets used as *successors* by
.. obsolete marker using changeset `B` as *precursors*
Chaining obsolete markers is allowed to rewrite a changeset that is already a
*successor*. This is a kind of *second order version control*.
To clarify ambiguous situations one can use **direct precursors** or
**direct successors** to name changesets that are directly related.
The set of all *obsolete markers* forms a direct acyclic graph the same way
standard *parents*/*children* relation does. In this graph we have:
:any precursors: are transitive precursors of a changeset: *direct precursors*
and *precursors* of *precursors*.
:any successors: are transitive successors of a changeset: *direct successors*
and *successors* of *successors*)
Obsolete markers may refer changesets that are not known locally.
So, *direct precursors* of a changeset may be unknown locally.
This is why we usually focus on the **first known precursors** of the rewritten
changeset. The same apply for *successors*.
Changeset in *any successors* which are not **obsolete** are called
**newest successors**..
.. note:: I'm not very happy with this naming scheme and I'm looking for a
better distinction between *direct successors* and **any successors*.
Possible changesets "type"
---------------------------------
The following table describes names and behaviors of changesets affected by
obsolete markers. The left column describes generic categories and the right
columns are about sub-categories.
+---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **mutable** | **obsolete** | **extinct** |
| | | |
| Changeset in either | Obsolete changeset is | *extinct* changeset is |
| *draft* or *secret* | *mutable* used as a | *obsolete* which has only |
| phase. | *precursor*. | *obsolete* descendants. |
| | | |
| | A changeset is used as | They can safely be: |
| | a *precursor* when at | |
| | least one obsolete | - hidden in the UI, |
| | marker refers to it | - silently excluded from |
| | as precursors. | pull and push operations |
| | | - mostly ignored |
| | | - garbage collected |
| | | |
| | +-----------------------------+
| | | |
| | | **suspended** |
| | | |
| | | *suspended* changeset is |
| | | *obsolete* with at least |
| | | one non-obsolete descendant |
| | | |
| | | Thoses descendants prevent |
| | | properties of extincts |
| | | changesets to apply. But |
| | | they will refuse to be |
| | | pushed without --force. |
| | | |
| +--------------------------+-----------------------------+
| | | |
| | **troublesome** | **unstable** |
| | | |
| | *troublesome* has | *unstable* is a changeset |
| | unresolved issue caused | with obsolete ancestors. |
| | by *obsolete* relations. | |
| | | |
| | Possible issues are | It must be rebased on a |
| | listed in the next | non *troublesome* base to |
| | column. It is possible | solve the problem. |
| | for *troublesome* | |
| | changeset to combine | (possible alternative name: |
| | multiple issue at once. | precarious) |
| | (a.k.a. conflicting and | |
| | unstable) +-----------------------------+
| | | |
| | (possible alternative | **latecomer** |
| | names: unsettled, | |
| | troubled) | *latecomer* is a changeset |
| | | that tries to be successor |
| | | of public changesets. |
| | | |
| | | Public changeset can't |
| | | be deleted and replace |
| | | *latecomer* |
| | | need to be converted into |
| | | an overlay to this public |
| | | changeset. |
| | | |
| | | (possible alternative names:|
| | | mislead, naive, unaware, |
| | | mindless, disenchanting) |
| | | |
| | +-----------------------------+
| | | **conflicting** |
| | | |
| | | *conflicting* is changeset |
| | | that appears when multiple |
| | | changesets are successors |
| | | of the same precursor. |
| | | |
| | | *conflicting* are solved |
| | | through a three ways merge |
| | | between the two |
| | | *conflictings*, |
| | | using the last "obsolete- |
| | | -common-ancestor" as the |
| | | base. |
| | | |
| | | (*splitting* is |
| | | properly not detected as a |
| | | conflict) |
| | | |
| +--------------------------+-----------------------------+
| | |
| | Mutable changesets which are neither *obsolete* or |
| | *troublesome* are *"ok"*. |
| | |
| | Do we really need a name for it ? *"ok"* is a pretty |
| | crappy name :-/ other possibilities are: |
| | |
| | - stable (confusing with stable branch) |
| | - sane |
| | - healthy |
| | |
+---------------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| **immutable** |
| |
| Changesets in the *public* phases. |
| |
| Rewriting operation refuse to work on immutable changeset. |
| |
| Obsolete markers that refer an immutable changeset as precursors have |
| no effect on the precussors but may have effect on the successors. |
| |
| When a *mutable* changeset becomes *immutable* (changing its phase from draft|
| to public) it is just *immutable* and loose any property of it's former |
| state. |
| |
| The phase properties says that public changesets stay as *immutable* forever.|
| |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
.. note:: I'm not very happy with the naming of:
- "ok" changeset
- latecomer
- troublesome
Any better idea are welcome.
Command and operation name
---------------------------------
Existing terms
``````````````
Mercurial core already uses the following terms:
:amend: to rewrite a changeset
:graft: to copy a changeset
:rebase: to move a changeset
Uncommit
`````````````
Remove files from a commit (and leave them as dirty in the working directory)
The *evolve* extension have an `uncommit` command that aims to replace most
`rollback` usage.
Fold
``````````
Collapse multiple changesets into a unique one.
The *evolve* extension will have a `fold` command.
Prune
``````````
Make a changeset obsolete without successors.
This an important operation as it should mostly replace *strip*.
Alternative names:
- kill: shall has funny effects when you forget "hg" in front of ``hg kill``.
- obsolete: too vague, too long and too generic.
Stabilize
```````````````
Automatically resolve *troublesome* changesets
(*unstable*, *latecomer* and *conflicting*)
This is an important name as hg pull/push will suggest it the same way it
suggest merging when you add heads.
I do not like stabilize much.
alternative names:
- solve (too generic ?)
- evolve (too vague)