[PATCH 3 of 3 V2] summary: add evolution "troubles" information to parents header lines

Pierre-Yves David pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org
Mon Dec 19 10:05:49 EST 2016

On 12/19/2016 09:28 AM, Denis Laxalde wrote:
> Pierre-Yves David a écrit :
>> On 11/08/2016 03:19 PM, Denis Laxalde wrote:
>>> # HG changeset patch
>>> # User Denis Laxalde <denis.laxalde at logilab.fr>
>>> # Date 1475935828 -7200
>>> #      Sat Oct 08 16:10:28 2016 +0200
>>> # Node ID 35c0f05d694cb9541d60bad9a940cb93a39d615d
>>> # Parent  b5d3d230bbc64d44968a9912e8e72aac8236522a
>>> # EXP-Topic evolve-ui
>>> summary: add evolution "troubles" information to parents header lines
>>> Extend labels of the `parent: ` line according to what `hg log`
>>> displays when
>>> coming from changeset_printer. This would make this line appear the
>>> same in
>>> log and summary with custom colors in particular.
>>> Extend that line with "troubles" information in parentheses, when the
>>> parent
>>> is troubled.
>> I know there have been objection against that, but I cannot remember
>> which one and why. Can you dig the mailing list a bit to see if you find
>> something?
> I can remember that nobody was in favor of the "trouble" term despite
> it's already used here and there (though not part of any API).

I meant "objection about adding trouble information on that first line, 
alongside the node and tags".

> From a non-technical perspective, this term arguably feels unsuitable.
> But on the other hand, it reminds me the term "troubleshooting" and its
> usage in a technical context; so in this respect, it feels quite
> appropriate.
> (The funny thing is that this word "trouble" comes from the Old French:
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trouble)
> Unless I missed something, the only alternative proposal, from Kevin,
> was "evolution:". Quoting his message:
> Kevin Bullock:
>> I'm also not keen on 'troubles'. For this purpose, I'd suggest
>> 'evolution:' by analogy to 'bisect:'. That won't work for referring
>> to the combined set of {divergences, bumps, ...}, but for labelling
>> "this changeset's evolution status" I think it works.
> I'm fine with this proposal. So if it's ok for you, I can send back the
> series with this term and other changes you suggested. Just let me know.

There is interesting bit in that proposal but I'm not entirely 
convinced. See my full response here.


Let's stick to "trouble" for now, the whole thing is gated behind an 
experimental flag anyway. I saw you sent a V3 that is missing from 
patchwork for an unclear reason (and that I missed myself then). I'll 
look at it soon™

>> Regarding the form, I would probably drop the "troubles:" part. eg:
>>  parent: 15:73568ab6879d tip (unstable)
>> Maybe we could use something else that (), but that seems fine so lets
>> stay with this.
> Good idea.

Pierre-Yves David

More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list