D7483: changectx: add a "maybe filtered" filtered attribute

[marmoute (Pierre-Yves David)]

marmoute added inline comments.

INLINE COMMENTS

> martinvonz wrote in context.py:484
> Add a comment explaining what this attribute means, such as "indicates that this changeset is visible regardless of filtering". Actually, maybe it's better to name the property something like `filter_agnostic`?

I'll add a comment.

filter_agnostic is misleading. the revision might be filtered for another filter.  Is is also borderline double negative.

> martinvonz wrote in context.py:503
> That would make `ctx.children()` incorrect, right?
> 
> I still wonder if the "visible" filter should be removed and (so there would be no `--hidden`, and no annoying message telling you use that flag). We would need to figure out what e.g. `hg log -r 'head()'` and `hg log -r x::` should do (to not include extinct heads) and how to make it easy for the user to get either behavior. Perhaps we would let `head()` be the visible heads and add a new `allheads()` to get all? That's obviously a much larger discussion and maybe a topic for the next sprint instead.

The filtering is usefull at many level and removing it means dedicated code in many places (eg: discovery). That is error prone. I feel like effort would be better put to simply making it go fast (could be O(1) with proper indexing).
Which anoying message are you talking about ?

I agree that this is a larger discussion and I would rather not see the discussion around this series derails. +1 to have it independently later.

REPOSITORY
  rHG Mercurial

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D7483/new/

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D7483

To: marmoute, #hg-reviewers
Cc: martinvonz, indygreg, mercurial-devel