martinvonz added a comment.
In D8030#120786 <https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8030#120786>, @marmoute wrote: > In D8030#120781 <https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8030#120781>, @martinvonz wrote: > >> I don't like the idea of delaying this feature two months. > > I believe we need wider discussion about this before going further, this is an interresting change but we cannot rush it. This not necessarly result in a to a 1.5 month delay if a proper community discussion happens before that. Can you create and fill a Plan page and start a community discussion around this? In D8030#120861 <https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8030#120861>, @Alphare wrote: >> I'm fine with marking the use of `-r` experimental. I don't like the idea of delaying this feature two months. Any problem with marking it experimental for now? As usual with experimental features, that will allow us to rename the flag (and change other behavior) before we take it out of experimental. > > Aside from (obviously) @marmoute, both Jordi and I had an instant reaction of "what?" when we learned what `--rev` meant. > I think that this goes against the intuition of at least a few people that are very accustomed to `hg`. While being able to operate on any particular rev could be a good - even great - idea in general, I am very uneasy about using `--rev` to qualify that target. I don't know if `--target-rev` is an option, but something similar would be much clearer that an already *extremely* common flag. This would shift the semantics of `--rev` in some commands and not in others. I'm fine with `--target-rev if that's REPOSITORY rHG Mercurial CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8030/new/ REVISION DETAIL https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8030 To: martinvonz, #hg-reviewers, durin42, marmoute Cc: Alphare, marmoute, pulkit, durin42, mercurial-devel _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
