[PATCH 5 of 7] changegroup: deprecate 'getlocalchangroup' (API)

[Martin von Zweigbergk]

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Pierre-Yves David
<pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 05/05/2017 08:38 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Pierre-Yves David
>> <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/05/2017 06:41 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Pierre-Yves David
>>>> <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> # HG changeset patch
>>>>> # User Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david at octobus.net>
>>>>> # Date 1493894621 -7200
>>>>> #      Thu May 04 12:43:41 2017 +0200
>>>>> # Node ID 2f51cfeac5bcf8ee266a6fada56517d5d44d9b6b
>>>>> # Parent  1e8427b7d0b9ce66c5ba34c2cdb64821ff909267
>>>>> # EXP-Topic changegroup.cleanup
>>>>> # Available At
>>>>> https://www.mercurial-scm.org/repo/users/marmoute/mercurial/
>>>>> #              hg pull
>>>>> https://www.mercurial-scm.org/repo/users/marmoute/mercurial/ -r
>>>>> 2f51cfeac5bc
>>>>> changegroup: deprecate 'getlocalchangroup' (API)
>>>>>
>>>>> We have 'getchangegroup' with a shorter name for the exactly same
>>>>> feature. Now
>>>>> that all users are gone we can formally deprecate it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We usually just delete methods that we no longer use internally. Why
>>>> not do that here?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When function are likely to be used by extension we try to avoid dropping
>>> them and we deprecated them for a version. This helps third party
>>> extensions
>>> to smoothly detect the API changes (usually through test run) and
>>> smoothly
>>> upgrade their code over the version cycle.
>>
>>
>> In this case I suspect it won't help many of them because I probably
>> broke most or all anyway with
>> https://www.mercurial-scm.org/repo/hg/rev/282b288aa20c. I thought we
>> were okay with that kind of changes. Are you saying I should have
>> instead added duplicate methods with the new signatures and only
>> deprecated the existing methods?
>
>
> Generating changegroup is a quite core feature in Mercurial. I suspect their
> are extension out there using these and I tried to be careful. That is a gut
> feeling. I'm did not looked at actual data. (that gut feeling proved right
> for "vfs", but might be wrong here)
>
> (so, yes I would have been more careful with your API change too)

Well, given that my patch probably broke most of those extensions, I
don't see much reason for your series to be more careful. But there's
little harm in doing it, so I'll queue it once tests have run etc.

>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Pierre-Yves David