[PATCH RFC] reflog: adds a reflog extension

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 13:52 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 14:19 -0400, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 10:42 -0700, Durham Goode wrote:
> > > On 10/5/14, 6:54 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 18:45 -0700, Durham Goode wrote:
> > > >> # HG changeset patch
> > > >> # User Durham Goode <durham at fb.com>
> > > >> # Date 1412200597 25200
> > > >> #      Wed Oct 01 14:56:37 2014 -0700
> > > >> # Node ID 942be96848993cf7ab5ed529db9c1f39c6d43c30
> > > >> # Parent  939ce500c92a3dcc0e10815242361ff70a6fcae9
> > > >> reflog: adds a reflog extension
> > > >>
> > > > I'm a little bothered by the UI. Like you said in a later email, the
> > > > goal here is to undo bookmark or pwd motions. The fact that the
> > > > information to undo is in a log should be mostly irrelevant for the
> > > > user. In that case, I propose that what you're currently calling
> > > > `reflog` should be something like `debugstatelog` and the `bookmark`
> > > > and `update` commands should use this statelog to grow --undo and
> > > > possibly --redo flags, e.g.
> > > >
> > > >      # Move bookmark master to whatever state it was before its current
> > > >      # state
> > > >      hg bookmark master --undo
> > > >
> > > >      # Move whatever was the last moved bookmark to whatever its
> > > >      # previous state was
> > > >      hg bookmark --undo
> > > >
> > > >      # Move dirstate and active bookmark to whatever they were before
> > > >      # the last time an `update` command was invoked
> > > >      hg update --undo
> > > >
> > > > Can we use your extension or perhaps blackbox to also provide an
> > > > --undo flag for `update`? Should your extension be rolled into
> > > > blackbox?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Undo and redo have significant connotations (and large expectations) for 
> > > a user, so I don't want to use that terminology.
> > 
> > I think it's expected to expect that `hg bookmark --undo` only moves
> > or recreates bookmarks, which is the same thing that `hg bookmark`
> > does.
> 
> If you think that, you are clearly not supporting a thousand ex-Git
> users who are mis-applying their vague understanding of Git branches to
> Mercurial bookmarks. 

If this is about appeasing git users, then I suppose giving hg a git
reflog command and exactly a git reflog command is all we can hope
for.