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

[Kevin Bullock]

On Oct 16, 2012, at 5:47 PM, Angel Ezquerra wrote:

> 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

This is a context line provided by `diff` itself (the --show-function flag). The text in the file isn't "rew\nbuilding".

>> 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"?

Should be 'new'.

> 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"?

Yup.

>> +- When changeset A is simply "pruned" from the graph, a marker in create:
> 
> "is created" rather than "in create".

Yup.

>> +- When changeset A is split into B and C, a single marker are used:
> 
> "a single marker _is_ used"?

Yep.

>> +  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"?

Yes, either.

> "independent" rather than "independents".

'independent operations' rather than 'independants operation'.

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

'then we have an error case'

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

It's a bit of a compulsion for me, so there you go. :)

pacem in terris / мир / शान्ति / ‎‫سَلاَم‬ / 平和
Kevin R. Bullock