[PATCH 4 of 5 RFC] revset: add a predicate for finding rebased changesets

[Pierre-Yves David]

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 02:36:12PM +0200, Sune Foldager wrote:
> On 2012-05-16 13:58, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
> >On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 01:52:28PM +0200, Sune Foldager wrote:
> >>I guess this mail made it anyway, I tried sending it from my phone the other day and it seemed not to work. Anyway...
> >>
> >>On 2012-05-16 13:50, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
> >>>On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 06:56:40PM +0200, Sune Foldager wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Matt Harbison <matt_harbison at yahoo.com> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> # HG changeset patch
> >>>>>> # User Matt Harbison <matt_harbison at yahoo.com>
> >>>>>> # Date 1336884852 14400
> >>>>>> # Node ID 5de639cd52e36c27b4c8bbbaa5fdb44803efee72
> >>>>>> # Parent  2612b6d41579adce0df8f6b744f2879868125b5b
> >>>>>> revset: add a predicate for finding rebased changesets
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This selects changesets added because of rebases. If a revision is
> >>>>>> specified, the set will be empty if that revision is not the source of
> >>>>>> a rebase, or it will contain a destination changeset for each time the
> >>>>>> specified revision was rebased. This can be useful for figuring out
> >>>>>> where a particular changeset has been propagated.
> >>>>
> >>>>Rebased changeset originals no longer exist, though, as opposed to grafted and locally transplanted ones, so what would you use it for?
> >>>
> >>>Various extras key are used:
> >>>
> >>>   graft:'source',
> >>>   rebase: 'rebase_source',
> >>>   transplant: 'rebase_source',
> >>
> >>Except maybe for --keep, I still don't see why we would want to track rebase sources. It's more confusing (since the cset doesn't exist) than good.
> >>
> >>>A first step seems to unify all this to the common "source" extra.[1]
> >>>
> >>>Then, a single revset predicate make sense.
> >>
> >>Sure. We shouldn't store it for rebase, though, I think.
> >>
> >>>(rebase --keep make a copy. It make sense to have the same behavior that graft there.)
> >>
> >>What is actually the difference between rebase --keep and graft, then?
> >
> >There is no real difference between them:
> >
> >   graft <revs> == rebase --detach --rev <rev> --dest .
> 
> You forgot --keep, right?

right…

graft <revs> == rebasei --keep --detach --rev <rev> --dest .

> >differences:
> >
> >* rebase was there 2 or 3 year earlier.
> >* values in extras changes.
> >* rebase have a terrible UI compared to graft.
> 
> Right, so maybe we should deprecate --keep now that we have graft, or are there other use cases?

Hum, there might be a difference after all. Rebase handle merge in the rebased set pretty
well. I'm not sure graft do anything there.

-- 
Pierre-Yves David

http://www.logilab.fr/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20120516/c85e8a16/attachment.pgp>