[PATCH 2 of 3 V3] obsolete: add example of marker usage in the documentation

[Angel Ezquerra]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:13 PM,  <pierre-yves.david at logilab.fr> wrote:
> # HG changeset patch
> # User Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org>
> # Date 1350250390 -7200
> # Node ID 599401a6fe6f44d33656f4c69f98de2f5ecec70c
> # Parent  d5311633f0fc23b2fa7a1d9189fe082cb1cf2df9
> obsolete: add example of marker usage in the documentation
>
> Recent discussion with Augie Fackler pointed the lack of such example in the
> documentation.

Pierre-Yves,

I think there are a few spelling mistakes in this patch, and also on
the _context_ of this patch.
Note however that I am not a native English speaker, so please do not
just take my word for this.

See my comments below.


> diff --git a/mercurial/obsolete.py b/mercurial/obsolete.py
> --- a/mercurial/obsolete.py
> +++ b/mercurial/obsolete.py
> @@ -18,10 +18,35 @@ transformations performed by history rew
>  building new tools to reconciliate conflicting rewriting actions. To
>  facilitate conflicts resolution, markers include various annotations
>  besides old and news changeset identifiers, such as creation date or
>  author name.

Does "rew building"  mean "rebuilding"?
I would say "To facilitate conflict resolution".
Is it "new" or "news"?

These are on the context of your patch but maybe they could be fixed as well?

> +Examples:
> +
> +- When changeset A is replacement by a changeset A', one marker is stored:

"replaced" rather than "replacement"?

> +
> +    (A, (A'))
> +
> +- When changesets A and B are folded into a new changeset C two markers are
> +  stored:
> +
> +    (A, (C,)) and (B, (C,))
> +
> +- When changeset A is simply "pruned" from the graph, a marker in create:

"is created" rather than "in create".

> +
> +    (A, ())
> +
> +- When changeset A is split into B and C, a single marker are used:

"a single marker _is_ used"?

> +
> +    (A, (C, C))
> +
> +  We use a single marker to distinct the "split" case from the "divergence"
> +  case. If two independants operation rewrite the same changeset A in to A' and
> +  A'' when have an error case: divergent rewriting. We can detect it because
> +  two markers will be created independently:

"to distinguish" or perhaps "to differentiate"  rather than "to distinct"?
"independent" rather than "independants".

"we have an error case" rather than "when have an error case"?

As I said I am not a native speaker. Hopefully someone else can review
my review :-)

Cheers,

Angel