[PATCH] hgwatchman: new experimental extension

Gregory Szorc gregory.szorc at gmail.com
Wed Feb 24 13:33:36 EST 2016


On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Siddharth Agarwal <sid at less-broken.com>
wrote:

> On 2/23/16 13:57, Augie Fackler wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 03:48:31PM +0100, Martijn Pieters wrote:
>>
>>> So, personally I think we should stick with hgwatchman to prevent
>>> getting confused over what part of the whole is being addressed.
>>>
>> I'm convinced the hg should stay. Anyone else have strong feelings either
>> way?
>>
>
> As the person who actually named the extension in the first place, I think
> the 'hg' should stay as well. Just the name 'watchman' is really ambiguous
> -- as Martin said, does it refer to the watchman service itself or to the
> integration layer?
>
> As far as the argument to convention goes, I strongly believe conventions
> should be overridden by common sense if necessary.
>

Why do we have to have "watchman" in the name at all? At its heart, the
extension performs filesystem watching to make operations faster. Perhaps
we could name it something like "fswatcher" or "fsmonitor" instead? Like
inotify, watchman is arguably an implementation detail.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20160224/ef8a9527/attachment.html>


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list