[PATCH 3 of 4 V2] bookmarks: rename readcurrent to readactive

[Ryan McElroy]

On 5/5/2015 11:54 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
>
>
> On 05/05/2015 09:30 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 10:40 AM Ryan McElroy <rmcelroy at fb.com
>> <mailto:rmcelroy at fb.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     # HG changeset patch
>>     # User Ryan McElroy <rmcelroy at fb.com <mailto:rmcelroy at fb.com>>
>>     # Date 1428991393 25200
>>     #      Mon Apr 13 23:03:13 2015 -0700
>>     # Node ID 3fae1a985ae9ef452aedb0e6c93ad02297248b4c
>>     # Parent  736ffdcc73cb164b24ac97e58209f6f9995fd676
>>     bookmarks: rename readcurrent to readactive
>>
>>     Today, the terms 'active' and 'current' are interchangeably used
>>     throughout the
>>     codebase in reference to the active bookmark (the bookmark that will
>>     be updated
>>     with the next commit). This leads to confusion among developers and
>>     users.
>>     This patch is part of a series to standardize the usage to 'active'
>>     throughout
>>     the mercurial codebase and user interface.
>>
>>     diff --git a/hgext/rebase.py b/hgext/rebase.py
>>     --- a/hgext/rebase.py
>>     +++ b/hgext/rebase.py
>>     @@ -888,7 +888,7 @@ def abort(repo, originalwd, target, stat
>>                   repair.strip(repo.ui, repo, strippoints)
>>
>>           if activebookmark:
>>     -        bookmarks.setcurrent(repo, activebookmark)
>>     +        bookmarks.activate(repo, activebookmark)
>>
>>           clearstatus(repo)
>>           repo.ui.warn(_('rebase aborted\n'))
>>     diff --git a/mercurial/bookmarks.py b/mercurial/bookmarks.py
>>     --- a/mercurial/bookmarks.py
>>     +++ b/mercurial/bookmarks.py
>>     @@ -107,12 +107,17 @@ class bmstore(dict):
>>                   fp.write("%s %s\n" % (hex(node),
>>     encoding.fromlocal(name)))
>>
>>       def readcurrent(repo):
>>     -    '''Get the current bookmark
>>     +    warnings.warn('deprecated function bookmarks.readcurrent()
>>     called. ' +
>>     +                  'update extension to call bookmarks.readactive()
>>     instead.',
>>     +                  category=DeprecationWarning, stacklevel=2)
>>     +    return readactive(repo)
>>
>>
>> Wasn't this supposed to just be deleted or did I misunderstand Augie's
>> comment?
>
> In all case, we -do-not-want- to inflict such warning on users. If any 
> such warning is to be issue, it should reused the 'devel-warn' logic 
> that we use for the locking logic. This would narrow the warning to 
> actual developer that can do something about it.
>
> (I'm pointing this in general, not as something saying "we should keep 
> compat here)
>
> However, bookmark movement is probably pervasive enough that third 
> party extension that we may want to keep some compatibility.
>
Per Augie's original request,  I had intended to remove this.

Let me clean up the import, actually rip out the warning, and re-send 
v3. Argh.