[PATCH 1 of 3] localrepo: add desc parameter to transaction

[Steve Borho]

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Steve Borho <steve at borho.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Brendan Cully <brendan at kublai.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, 09 April 2010 at 22:41, Steve Borho wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen
>>> <danchr at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > I like the idea, but I have two questions about this:
>>> >
>>> > First, are you certain that the revision number is a meaningful identifier? In most cases, rollback will be used without the --dry-run parameter, so you'll essentially be saying ‘destroying X’ after which X no longer refers to anything. (It seems to me that using the revision number is inconsistent with the rest of Mercurial; generally, the hash is used to refer to revisions. This has the advantage of retaining the ‘meaning’ of the identifier and making two separate rollbacks print out different messages.)
>>>
>>> We're recording the revision number you'll be rolling back to, not the
>>> revision(s) being destroyed.  Transactions are inherently local, you
>>> only ever run rollback on local repositories, so storing and reciting
>>> a revision number does not seem out of place.  But I'm curious how
>>> others feel about this.
>>
>> I agree that revision numbers are fine for rollback. I do wonder if it
>> might be nice to capture the transaction source as well as type in the
>> description:
>>
>> rolling back pull from http://foo/
>> rolling back unbundle from ../foo.bundle
>>
>> etc.
>
> I tried this, but in many operations the provided url is more noise
> than information.  Something maybe with a little intelligence could be
> added after my patch series is pushed.

For example: Many of the test outputs change like this:

-rolling back last transaction
+rolling back push (file:/tmp/hgtests.SwlAx1/test-acl/a) to revision 1

Which would be a PITA to clean up.

--
Steve Borho