[PATCH 4 of 5 V2] histedit: add execute function (issue4036)

[Sean Farley]

Augie Fackler <raf at durin42.com> writes:

> On Mar 10, 2014, at 4:24 AM, Olle <olle.lundberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Sean Farley <sean.michael.farley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Why is there such opposition to adding an exec flag to histedit?
>
>
> Because it feels conceptually wrong to me. I've been wrong before. I'll be less paranoid if I can try it for a while with an out of tree extension.

It seems your thinking is along the lines of:

for r in revs:
  doSomething(r)

which is problematic when you want to splice together a human edit with
a script. Like I said before, your suggestion forces two loops through
the changesets which is unnecessary and sometimes expensive.

>> I actually prefer to keep them in the same command, it seems more logical to keep the same functionality grouped together. But there seems to be some strong preference for adding a new command. Anyway, will probably try to massage what I have to an out of tree extension, implementing a command called histfilter (re: IRC with mpm and others), that uses som logic from histedit and then try to get some audience to try it out.
>
> I'd be very open to some refactoring work in histedit so the extension could expose both models for me to try out.

I really want to see all human-interaction parts of Mercurial unified
with respect to editing log messages and at which part the human is
brought in (so that a script could append an id or some such to the end
of a message).