[PATCH 0 of 2] fast manifest based grep

[Matt Mackall]

On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 14:06 -0500, Steve Borho wrote:
> On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-05-16 at 14:48 -0500, Steve Borho wrote:
> >> On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 23:45 -0500, Steve Borho wrote:
> >> >> >> 1) No longer report a revision number by default
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How do we get them back?
> >> >>
> >> >> By asking for annotation data.  Any use of 'user', 'date', 'follow',
> >> >> 'rev', or 'all' will fall back to the filerev search routine that
> >> >> outputs a revision field.
> >> >
> >> > Ok, it seems there's no way to get back to precisely the current default
> >> > behavior (however silly it is), is that correct?
> >>
> >> The -r tip:null syntax gives you the exact behavior as before.
> >
> > Ahh, right.
> >
> >> For what it's worth, I wouldn't mind hiding the new functionality
> >> behind grep -c for now, leaving the default behavior as it is.   The
> >> only problem is there's no clear way to specify -c "working copy".
> >
> > The current behavior seems a bit nonsensical, so let's explore fixing it
> > up a bit more.
> 
> My plan is to remove, from my patch, the checks for the annotate
> options and allow the manifest scan method to be used for all cases,
> except when --all and/or --rev are specified.

Ok, so are these two different?

hg grep -r 1.0 pat foo
hg grep -c 1.0 pat foo

I think your -c is redundant once we have a separate switch for revision
numbers.

> The manifest scan algorithm will call into commands.manifest() on
> demand; caching the result for the current file [1].
> 
> We still need a flag to enable revision numbers in the output.  'n',
> 'l', 'i', 'R', 'c' are already taken.  Perhaps: '-N' '--rev-number'
> 
> Lastly; I don't think annotation will work at all for the working copy
> (what rev do you show for working changes?).  Should I abort if the
> user asks for annotation for repo[None], or fallback to repo['.']?  In
> other words:

Best would be to teach annotate about working copies. But we can try to
tackle that later.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.