[PATCH 1 of 3 RFC] vfs: add "vfs" fields to localrepository for migration from "opener"

[Matt Mackall]

On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 12:59 +0200, Adrian Buehlmann wrote:
> On 2012-06-26 11:22, FUJIWARA Katsunori wrote:
> > 
> > At Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:27:06 +0200,
> > Adrian Buehlmann wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2012-06-21 12:47, FUJIWARA Katsunori wrote:
> >>> diff -r 88f650208c32 -r 11873b223a9c mercurial/localrepo.py
> >>> --- a/mercurial/localrepo.py	Wed Jun 20 12:30:16 2012 -0500
> >>> +++ b/mercurial/localrepo.py	Thu Jun 21 19:41:03 2012 +0900
> >>> @@ -38,7 +38,9 @@
> >>>          self.origroot = path
> >>>          self.auditor = scmutil.pathauditor(self.root, self._checknested)
> >>>          self.opener = scmutil.opener(self.path)
> >>> +        self.vfs = self.opener
> >>>          self.wopener = scmutil.opener(self.root)
> >>> +        self.wvfs = self.wopener
> >>
> >> I know it's probably the "plan", but I don't like a name "wvfs".
> >>
> >> My brain is almost reaching for the canonical "wtf", similarity-wise.
> >>
> >> Likewise, svfs is not something I'd like to have to look at in broader
> >> scope.
> >>
> >> Perhaps dropping the "v" might help:
> >>
> >>   wvfs -> wfs
> >>
> >>   svfs -> sfs
> >>
> >> Almost every file system is virtual in some sense, isn't it? So I think
> >> "virtual" is a bit meaningless.
> >>
> >> But we might go a bit longer:
> >>
> >>   wvfs -> workingfs
> >>
> >>   svfs -> storefs
> >>
> >> Compare: workingctx in context.py.
> >>
> >> If you want to insist on "vfs":
> >>
> >>   wvfs -> workingvfs
> >>
> >>   svfs -> storevfs
> > 
> > Thank you for your comments.
> > 
> > What about renaming below ?
> > 
> >     opener  -> repovfs
> 
> Hmm. Usage of that would read a bit silly. Consider:
> 
>       file = repo.opener('bookmarks.current')
> 
> would then look like
> 
>       file = repo.repovfs('bookmarks.current')
> 
> I'd say repo.vfs is ok.

I frankly prefer vfs/wvfs/svfs. It's no worse than 'ctx' or 'wctx' and I
just know I'm going to get really tired of typing "repo.workingvfs".

> BTW, has anyone thought about renaming __call__ on the opener class to
> open? After all, vfs is not just an "opener" any more...

Adding an alias is fine.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.