[PATCH RFC] color: rename 'label' template function to 'color'

[Sean Farley]

Angel Ezquerra <angel.ezquerra at gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Sean Farley
> <sean.michael.farley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 12:27 -0500, Sean Farley wrote:
>>>> Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On Sun, 2014-04-06 at 21:32 -0500, Sean Farley wrote:
>>>> >> # HG changeset patch
>>>> >> # User Sean Farley <sean.michael.farley at gmail.com>
>>>> >> # Date 1396670819 18000
>>>> >> #      Fri Apr 04 23:06:59 2014 -0500
>>>> >> # Node ID aa43236b2340fadf49b087929f0e5ed514ec0c60
>>>> >> # Parent  c7ceae0faf6997ff3c262a0b641719b6fd357055
>>>> >> color: rename 'label' template function to 'color'
>>>> >
>>>> > Breaks backward compatibility. Go directly to Jail, do not pass Go, do
>>>> > not collect $200.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, that's what I thought. How should 'labels' (i.e. arbitrary markers
>>>> for changesets) be accessed through templates?
>>>
>>> 'labels' is still workable, if suboptimal. 'markers' or 'marks' is still
>>> in the running, despite what Pierre-Yves says. 'names' might be possible
>>> as well.
>>
>> Fair enough. I prefer 'label' as the name but will wait for the outcome
>> of this running.
>
> I don't recall having read any discussion about "arbitrary markers for
> changesets". I've only found an RFC by Sean related to this. Can you
> guys point me to the relevant thread(s)? Is there a plan to add
> "arbitrary" markers to changesets? e.g. will it be possible to "mark"
> revisions with the same marker (e.g. integrated, etc)? will they be
> mutable?

It was mainly discussed on IRC but the idea is to provide a way for
extensions to add a label to a changeset without polluting tags or
bookmarks.