[PATCH 1 of 3 V2] summary: add a phase line (draft, secret) to the output

[Pierre-Yves David]

On 05/16/2015 12:27 AM, Gilles Moris wrote:
> Le 16/05/2015 07:52, Pierre-Yves David a écrit :
>>
>>
>> On 05/15/2015 02:09 AM, Gilles Moris wrote:
>>> # HG changeset patch
>>> # User Gilles Moris <gilles.moris at free.fr>
>>> # Date 1431617918 -7200
>>> #      Thu May 14 17:38:38 2015 +0200
>>> # Node ID b51d7e3407dd0be0807c887c9b6fb82bebf57bf6
>>> # Parent  d1bd0fd07ee6adf4ab3be2b0a0a7c0df54d55abf
>>> summary: add a phase line (draft, secret) to the output
>>>
>>> The number of draft and secret changesets are currently not summarized.
>>> This is an important information because the number of drafts give
>>> some rough
>>> idea of the number of outgoing changesets in typical workflows,
>>> without needing
>>> to probe a remote repository. And a non-zero number of secrets means
>>> that
>>> those changeset will not be pushed.
>>>
>>> If the repository is "dirty" - some draft or secret changesets exists
>>> - then
>>> summary will display a line like:
>>>
>>> phases: X draft, Y secret (public)
>>
>> I like the idea of showing phases in summary a lot.
>>
>> But I'm not a fan of the (public) here. I feel like it is too obscure
>> for a user to link it with the current working directory parents .
>> In the mean time, we already have parent related information in
>> summary, could we add (non public) phases information in this parent
>> display? I feel it would be much clearer.
>>
> Yes, it makes sense.
> But this will probably need to be marked as (BC), as it will change the
> display of all non public commit.
> And it will need a follow up patch as it has already been pushed.
>
>> (even if I know that (<data>) usually related to working directory I
>> do not feel like the parent information fit there. Maybe we could have
>> the phase of the future commit there (draft or secret, depending of
>> config and parents).
>>
>>
> So this would display something like (if
> --config=phases.new-commit=secret):
>
> parent: 2:ab91dfabc5ad
>   public commit
> parent: 3:24f1031ad244 tip (draft)
>   draft commit
> branch: default
> commit: 1 modified, 1 unknown, 1 unresolved (merge)
> update: (current)
> phases: 1 draft (secret)

this was my proposal, but seeing it written still make me uncomfortable 
with this (secret), we should probably move it the "commit:" line where 
it make more sense:

parent: 2:ab91dfabc5ad
   public commit
parent: 3:24f1031ad244 tip [draft]
   draft commit
branch: default
commit: 1 modified, 1 unknown, 1 unresolved (merge) [secret]
update: (current)
phases: 1 draft


(I'm trying the use of something else than () in the process as a lead.

What do you think?


I'm still not super convinced that "phases: 1 draft" is easy to 
understand. But this is another topic.

Maybe "phases: 1 draft total" to make it clear the repo is repository wide.

Another things that confuse me about this line is the fact that it seems 
to be repo wide, this is useful for small and simple repo but confusing 
and useless on large one. the "update:" field is also affected to some 
extend as it show everything on the same branch regardless of them 
having a bookmark or not.

This is bit(much) wider than this changeset, but we probably want 
multiple information here (update and draft).

- Whats one the current "stack" (descendant and ancestors)
   - how many descendant (relevant to update)
   - how many phased ancestors/descendants
   - maybe number of descendant heads

- Whats one the current branch
   - how many other changesets
   - how many others heads
   - how many phased changesets?

- Whats in the whole repo.
   - how many other branch
   - how many others heads
   - how many other changesets
   - how many phased changesets?

Then we have to figure out how to throw bookmark into the mix ;-)

What do you think? (and do you care?)

-- 
Pierre-Yves David