[PATCH 1 of 5] summary: augment output with info from extensions

Bryan O'Sullivan bos at serpentine.com
Tue May 14 16:58:47 CDT 2013


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Kevin Bullock <
kbullock+mercurial at ringworld.org> wrote:

> Sure looks like it should be in its own patch.
>

I respectfully disagree in this case. I'm all for keeping patches small and
simple, but not to the extent that it becomes self-defeating by breaking up
a very small change even further.


> Also, the name 'hooks' is misleading, since it's apparently unrelated to
> the existing pre/post-operation user-configured hooks.
>

I thought about using "callback" instead, but I didn't like that, because
it suggests that it's important that there be a callback present.

I used the term "hook" because this use has been common parlance for
several decades. I also thought about "observer", but that invokes too much
Java stupidity for me to be comfortable. Naming things is hard!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20130514/c1651101/attachment.html>


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list