> IMO, it's "hg diff --git" that's broken, as it doesn't include the base
> revision (other formats, such as "hg export", do).
I agree that it's poor form to omit the revisions, and we should
supplicate Mercury at his temple. But I don't see the problem for
Reitveld integration; they're easily available, no? At least, so far
in the discussion the "two -r" form has been used, so this should do
the trick:
improved-hg-diff--git () {
# usage: improved-hg-diff--git BASE TIP
hg identify -i -r $1
hg identify -i -r $2
hg diff --git -r $1 -r $2
}
What am I missing?
Not sure what problem you are trying to solve. To make such a script
useful, users would actually have to use it, instead of using what they
use now, right? If so, how does that help me with patches that don't
have this form?
If I can get users to use something different, any of "diff without
--git", "export with or without --git", "outgoing with or without --git"
would do (although outgoing uses a localized header, which would make
it more difficult to parse).
Regards,
Martin
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
