Accessing hidden commits by hash (directaccess extension)

[Ryan McElroy]

On 8/28/17 7:00 PM, Augie Fackler wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2017, at 13:13, Durham Goode <durham at fb.com 
> <mailto:durham at fb.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On 8/27/17 6:51 PM, Augie Fackler wrote:
>>>
>>> It sounds like you whitelist read and unrecoverable-write
>>> commands. Does that mean "ercoverable-write" commands are inferred
>>> from not being in those two whitelists? How has that interacted with
>>> users finding random extensions or defining custom aliases?
>>
>> Yea, the default behavior is warn-the-user.  Very, very few of our 
>> users have ever enabled random extensions so that has not been an issue.
>
> Hm, okay. Then one thing we should probably do is hoist these lists 
> into core, and make it so they're trivial to amend so that out-of-tree 
> extensions can correctly categorize their behavior. I'd imagine this 
> could have other value, so maybe it should be in the @command decorator?
>

I like the idea of adding this to the command decorator. I think that 
will prevent new commands from being put into the wrong category.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20170831/245bf077/attachment.html>