[PATCH RFC] log: add --from for showing history from a certain rev

[Augie Fackler]

On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 03:02:17PM -0800, Durham Goode wrote:
>
> On 2/6/15 2:07 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> >On Fri, 2015-02-06 at 13:17 -0800, Durham Goode wrote:
> >>On 2/6/15 12:37 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
> >>>Matt Mackall writes:
> >>>
> >>>>On Fri, 2015-02-06 at 11:26 -0800, Sean Farley wrote:
> >>>>>Durham Goode writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>># HG changeset patch
> >>>>>># User Durham Goode <durham at fb.com>
> >>>>>># Date 1423249495 28800
> >>>>>>#      Fri Feb 06 11:04:55 2015 -0800
> >>>>>># Node ID 86c462eee946ce6ce63140fa494e765196107126
> >>>>>># Parent  e1dbe0b215ae137eec53ceb12440536d570a83d2
> >>>>>>log: add --from for showing history from a certain rev
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Right now it's very obtuse to show the history of a particular rev (hg log -r
> >>>>>>'reverse(::foo)'). This adds a --from option that allows "hg log --from foo".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Sending as an RFC since the naming might be controversial and there might be
> >>>>>>better ways of integrating it with existing commands (like using this to show
> >>>>>>history for bookmarks, hg log --from mybook vs hg log --bookmark mybook).
> >>>>>As we found out on IRC, both myself and another person got confused with
> >>>>>the naming of '--from': we both thought it meant 'foo::'.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I do like the idea of this patch for logging the history of a symbol. In
> >>>>>most commands, we have '-b' for branch and '-B' for bookmarks. Since we
> >>>>>have this new namespace API, why not use that?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>hg log --name/-N foo
> >>>>Log will probably never get another filtering option. It has too many.
> >>>Fair enough.
> >>>
> >>>>We should probably instead figure out why -fr foo doesn't do what's
> >>>>wanted.
> >>As it stands, -r implies 'show me exactly these' revisions.  So -f
> >>doesn't modify -r at all (nor should it I think).
> >I don't understand that. In my mind, there are basically two reasonable
> >behaviors for hg log -f -r <spec>:
> >
> >  ::(<spec>)  # follow the revisions in the spec
> >
> >or the slightly weird and less useful:
> >
> >  ::. and (<spec>)  # filter the revset relative to .
> >
> >A third almost meaningless possibility is:
> >
> >  ::. or (<spec>)  # show the union of two unrelated things
> >
> >You seem to be arguing for:
> >
> >  <spec> # silently ignore -f
> >
> >..and then adding a whole new flag to do what -f is more or less
> >documented to do.
> >
> I talked about this with Matt in IRC. While it's a bit odd that -f could
> cause log to produce more output than without (normally flags on log filter
> data, not add it), -fr currently does nothing special (it's just -r) and is
> very discoverable, so I think it's a reasonable idea to make that work
> instead.

Can you clarify these statements? My parse of this paragraph was that
I should expect to see a patch that makes "-fr" work as you proposed
--from to, but now I see another patch about --from. Can you elaborate
here before I spend time looking at the new --from patch?

>
> If no one opposes, I'll send a patch out later.
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial-devel mailing list
> Mercurial-devel at selenic.com
> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel