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 _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
