Fwd: Re: [PATCH V2] revset: add "matching" keyword

Angel Ezquerra angel.ezquerra at gmail.com
Wed Apr 4 18:46:13 CDT 2012


On Apr 5, 2012 1:36 AM, "Angel Ezquerra" <angel.ezquerra at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Forwarding third message from timeless to the list.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "timeless" <timeless at gmail.com>
> Date: Apr 4, 2012 10:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] revset: add "matching" keyword
> To: "Angel Ezquerra" <angel.ezquerra at gmail.com>
>
> This comment should be sent on list, but I can't strip quoting ...
>
> I'm worried about your second argument.
>
> Consider:
>
> match(branch(a), da)
>
> If today that works because we only have "date", but tomorrow we add
> "dangerous" as a field, then suddenly the revset breaks. This seems to
> be a compatibility pain point. Mercurial tries very hard in general to
> break things that used to work.
>
> If we decide to keep this sub matching, then I think a documention
> warning indicating that "such matching may break in the future as
> additional fields are added" may be worth including.
>
> --
> please feel free to send this to the list, but please strip the quoted
> message that follows --

BTW I think timeless has a point. I'd like to keep the prefix matching
because I think it is very handy and convenient.

Perhaps the solution is simply to document the order in which fields are
matched and keep that order unchanged as part of mercurial's backwards
compatibility promise?

Angel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20120405/429ee956/attachment.html>


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list