[PATCH RFC] revert: no longer mark --interactive as experimental

[Denis Laxalde]

Martin von Zweigbergk a écrit :
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Denis Laxalde <denis at laxalde.org> wrote:
> 
>> Augie Fackler a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 2, 2017, at 09:39, Martin von Zweigbergk via Mercurial-devel <
>>>> mercurial-devel at mercurial-scm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Can we still change the behavior of "hg revert -i -r" to show a to-apply
>>>> diff, not a to-revert diff? (There's a bug number I'm too lazy to look up
>>>> from mobile.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> I thought we had already done the patch-reversing that we felt was
>>> required...
>>>
>>
>> The last discussion ended with a status quo:
>>
>> https://www.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial-devel/2016-November/090142.html
>>
>> Since then, I set "experimental.revertalternateinteractivemode=false" to
>> have a behavior that I find meaningful in most situations.
> 
> 
> So do I. The problem is that new users won't have that. If we're graduating
> --interactive now, then this seems like a good time (at the latest) to
> switch the default of that flag.
> 
> 
>> The only case
>> it does not work well is "hg revert -i -r .^" (which I think was a major
>> motivation for the current behavior).
> 
> 
> I prefer the forward direction even when reverting to a parent. We could
> add --no-forward-patch flag or something, or we could add a "hg grab" that
> grabs the file content from a revision and is equivalent to "hg revert"
> except that the patch is always forward. But last time I suggested that, no
> one seemed interested, so I'm not very optimistic. So probably just switch
> the default of revertalternateinteractivemode to false?

I can resurrect the patch above linked above which drops the option and
use the "apply" verb instead of "revert". Just let me know.