[PATCH] addremove: print relative paths when called with -I/-X

[Martin von Zweigbergk]

On Tue Dec 02 2014 at 7:30:25 AM Matt Harbison <mharbison at attotech.com>
wrote:

> Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz <at> google.com> writes:
>
> >
> >
> > mpm, I see you have a lot of patches in flight. If you agree with this
> patch, you may want to pick it before the other Matt's patches, and instead
> make the poor guy send a V3.
> >
> > Matt, I didn't look past the first 6 or so patches. Did the anyfiles()
> method end up being used anywhere else, or would this patch remove the need
> for it completely?
>
> I'll check when I get home, but I doubt it.  The other 8 or so patches that
> I didn't send yet deal with making the largefiles methods print the path
> correctly.  I was puzzled too why the discrepancy with how the path was
> printed with pats vs -I/-X, but superseded v1 because anypats() caused an
> existing test to change, and I figured I'd have a better chance of getting
> this through if there weren't subtle side effect changes like that.
>
> A grep for '\(pats and' shows that annotate, locate and status use a
> similar
> pattern, so maybe you want to fix those too?
>

Thanks for checking. Yes, locate even has a test for the absolute path,
although it's not very clear if that was the intent. Maybe there's a reason
that the two forms should behave differently. I suppose one could say that
-I/-X should have as little effect as possible on the command and just
restrict the set of files acted on. I'll wait for comments from mpm or
someone else who remembers how to view -I/-X before I send more patches.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20141202/5f9c7961/attachment.html>