[PATCH V2] graft: record the user who performed the command in the extras dictionary

[Gregory Szorc]

On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Matt Harbison <mharbison72 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 17:22:16 -0400, Augie Fackler <raf at durin42.com> wrote:
>
>  On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 08:30:17PM -0700, Siddharth Agarwal wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/10/2015 07:50 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I like the intent of this patch but I'm not a fan of "graft-user." I
>>> > think answering "who was the last person to 'touch' this commit" is
>>> > useful beyond graft and I could see us doing something similar for
>>> > other history editing commands (e.g. rebase).
>>> >
>>> > Thinking ahead to when we want this metadata exposed to users (think a
>>> > template keyword), I'd rather we have a single entity, not N, to
>>> > represent "last touched by user." "last-user?"
>>>
>>> Since we appear to be dancing around the obvious suggestion:
>>>
>>> "committer"?
>>>
>>> /me runs away
>>>
>>
>> I think you're joking, but I was actually going to suggest just that.
>>
>
> I like it too.  The joke part makes me think I should wait for mpm to
> approve?
>

The joke part is this is almost exactly what Git does. I concede to not
suggesting "committer" myself because I didn't want to invite comparisons.
Thanks, Siddharth!

But I'm with Martin on this - unless this is pressing I'd like to hear how
the changelog discussion plays out before adding more metadata on
changesets. Food for thought: push log is yet another piece of "who did
what" that would be nice to record. But it can't be part of the hash unless
you want to invalidate hashes at push time.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20150411/bde6cfff/attachment.html>