[PATCH 0 of 4] Subrepository log

Matt Mackall mpm at selenic.com
Fri Sep 24 09:50:19 CDT 2010

On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 17:03 +0200, Martin Geisler wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> Please take a look at these patches for subrepository log.
> The one thing I'm not so happy about is the heading that is printed
> when entering a subrepo

(Then why don't you show us some example output to discuss? And no, a
test buried somewhere in a patch series does not count. This is like my
#2 peeve behind people proposing non-backward-compatible features.)

Here's what it looks like:

+Recursive log:
+  $ hg log -S -l 1
+  changeset:   2:1326fa26d0c0
+  tag:         tip
+  user:        test
+  date:        Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+  summary:     2-3-2
+  log in subrepository foo
+  changeset:   3:65903cebad86
+  tag:         tip
+  user:        test
+  date:        Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+  summary:     2-3-2

Yeah, that marker is not terribly useful. But I think there are bigger
issues here.

I can't imagine how this is going to work with SVN and Git subrepos,
especially once we throw in all the various top-level log options. And
things like -r are just going to be random/broken.

Further, most people would probably 'expect' some sort of topological
ordering between upper-level and lower-level commits, ie if top at 3 points
to sub at 4, then we'd expect to see all the changes leading up to/back to
sub at 4 first. And for cases where I'm pulling in a bunch of third-party
component like the Linux kernel or glibc or whatever, most of those
commits just aren't going to be useful.

I think this piece as a whole is going to need more discussion. And at
some level, there are just going to be some things where the most
sensible solution is going to be 'cd sub; hg/svn/git <cmd>'.

Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list