[PATCH] revset: introduce feature revset for tracking in-progress work (issue4968)

[Andrew Halberstadt]

On 30/11/15 05:36 PM, Augie Fackler wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 04:53:36PM -0500, timeless wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Andrew Halberstadt <halbersa at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> # HG changeset patch
>>>> # User Andrew Halberstadt <ahalberstadt at mozilla.com>
>>>> # Date 1448490626 18000
>>>> #      Wed Nov 25 17:30:26 2015 -0500
>>>> # Node ID 3545b0234e4884f57dac44fd4e443deac5b9d673
>>>> # Parent  61fbf5dc12b23e7a2a30cf04ebd9f096c42a1f61
>>>> revset: introduce feature revset for tracking in-progress work (issue4968)
>>>>
>>> Related to the bikeshed this patch will likely trigger, my recollection is
>>> mpm gave approval at the London sprint for a `hg smartlog` or `hg wip` type
>>> command to be in core. For those not familiar, this would be a command that
>>> basically shows a "not public()" centric view of changesets that haven't
>>> been landed/finalized/published yet, probably with the visual graph shown,
>>> possibly with a more condensed template to make output more readable.
>>
>> I'd prefer `wip()` over `feature()` for this bikeshed.
>>
>> I think it does a better job of identifying what's in the shed.
> The issue is that the output probably wants to include things that
> aren't in progress as context information. My smartlog is pretty
> complex, but basically it is along these lines:
>
> heads(public()) + (not public()) + (parents(not public()))
>
> I'm in favor of smartlog (with a default alias of sl also being around
> probably) over wip, simply because it's less opaque ("it's like log,
> but tries to be smart and show you things of interest").

Fwiw, I don't really like the name 'feature()' either. I just didn't have any better ideas at the time. I'll gladly change it to whatever the consensus is.