[PATCH evolve_ext V2] fold: take an explicit list of revisions (BC)

[Sean Farley]

Greg Ward writes:

> On 23 June 2014, Pierre-Yves David said:
>> On 06/22/2014 04:52 PM, Greg Ward wrote:
>> ># HG changeset patch
>> ># User Greg Ward <greg at gerg.ca>
>> ># Date 1403481137 14400
>> >#      Sun Jun 22 19:52:17 2014 -0400
>> ># Node ID 4ab7a80fc11f275c03d4ddb94936a0688b71e6bc
>> ># Parent  2fbba0bf7e7c8cbff1f94bc95c4d6214df85ef81
>> >fold: take an explicit list of revisions (BC)
>> 
>> No thanks.
>
> Darn. I guess I misunderstood our previous discussion about this.
>
>> This use the be the default and ended up being very confusing. The
>> vast majority of fold operation involve the working directory and an
>> ancestors (something a descendant). The default should reflect that.
>> Also, we should not requires user to have a PhD in revset to use Mercurial.
>
> "REV::" is not a PhD-level revset.
>
>> So, I'm deeply convince the default should be "fold between . and REV".
>
> OK, fine. I happen to disagree, but whatever.

I strongly agree with Greg on this one. 'hg fold' is horribly
confusing. I posit that your sample space is too small.

>> How ever I agree than having different behavior for `hg fold REV`
>> and `hg fold --rev REV` sucks.
>
> OK, I'll see if I can fix that.
>
>> I also agree that the "do an in
>> memory fold of unrelated changeset" usecase is nice. We should think
>> about a dedicated flag for this case.

What is this? Git? If you're so strongly convinced that 'hg fold' should
default to .^::. then why don't you make an alias (or potentially, a
revset alias)?