hgweb page with hg log -b <branchname>

[Johan Samyn]

Sorry for keeping you all waiting for a reaction on this topic. Been
ill, and I am still struggling with python (beginner, as I stated
earlier), so please be somewhat patient with me.

2009/12/29 Sune Foldager <cryo at cyanite.org>:
> Hello Johan, crew and list :)
>
> Some genereal comments on this...
>
> Showing a log filtered by branch name (like log -b) seems only partially
> useful... because technically the commits tagged with a given name don't
> really constitute a "branch" in a graph sense.
Well Sune, Matt, Dirkjan, and Greg seem pleased with this though. I
gladly refer to what Greg replied on this part. Since tonight I can
even refer to another threadby Nicolas Dumazet and Mads Killerich,
about the navigation line at the bottom of the hgweb log pages. Mads
apparently would appreciate a branchlog view either as I understood.

> For that, all ancestors
> would need to be included. With hg log, this would mean something like
> "hg log -f -r <branch name>", for the tip-most head of the branch at
> least. For others, the revision must be provided directly.
>
> For hgweb, I also tend to think that logs like that are a lot more
> useful than a filtered log. I contemplated adding it at some point, and
> it's not too hard to make it work, but there are some rather annoying
> problems with the current page navigation which is purely based on
> revision numbers. Without changing that, you risk nothing happening when
> you click on "-50" because there are simply no commits on the branch
> within that range.
Yeah, I noticed that of course. For this particular part I refer
(again) to another thread, started by Mads Killerich, to which I
replied this evening. Please see my reaction to the thread "[PATCH 0
of 1] hgweb: improve navigation".

>
> Another problem with -b is how to produce a connected graph (it's
> hgweb's graph mode I was/am mostly interested in seeing this feature
> in). Well, these are just some thoughts. Apologies if this is a separate
> problem you're trying to solve.
>
> I suppose it won't hurt with a page showing -b output and the other
> thing put into graph mode as well... except for one thing: user
> confusion, since both would be called, in some way, viewing a branch.
And the graph mode, I wasn't even dreaming of that one to tackle (yet).

>
> (To compare with git, only the behavior I describe will make sense with
> their branches-by-head-pointers, I suppose.)
Dunno anything about git (except its existence). And ... this is for
Mercurial  ;-)
> Sune
>
Thanks for commenting, Sune.

My drive was simply to have a view that was 'dedicated' to a branch.
Because I felt that need at different moments while working with
Mercurial. After all, if a branch can be important enough to have a
dedicated name, and so much attention, I guess it can require it's own
page, or not ? So I thought this was a good one to add.
Johan