On 05/06/2017 03:55 PM, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
On May 5, 2017 23:57, "Pierre-Yves David"
<pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org <mailto:pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org>>
wrote:
[…]
I've digged up a bit and already found a couple of Facebook
extensions using getlocalchangegroup so I think it is safer to
assume there are external users.
I don't care much. Durham, do you guys care enough so we should back out
the change. I don't care enough to clean up that I'm going to bother
with deprecation.
The point is not so much about how Facebook will adapt to the API
change. They have a good continuous test coverage and many dev about to
do the adjustment. My point is more than if we can find usage of that
API in Facebook extension, it is a good hint that other extensions might
do the same too.
It is not too important, I'll do a cleanup path on this in the next
couple of weeks and align things one way or another (dropping the old
one or adding some deprecwarn).
On 05/06/2017 08:20 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> The changegroup APIs are horrible and are low-level. I favor deleting
> legacy ones that are no longer used in core. Extensions can test for
> function presence at run-time.
Yep! We are dropping that function and cleaning the API in all cases. We
are just discussing keeping it around for a couple of month to help with
third party extension.
--
Pierre-Yves David
_______________________________________________
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
