[PATCH] indent merges more nicely during merge

[Martin Pool]

On 4 Apr 2006, at 12:24 , Robert Collins wrote:
>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> revno: 1591
>>> committer: Canonical.com Patch Queue Manager<pqm at pqm.ubuntu.com>
>>> branch nick: +trunk
>>> timestamp: Mon 2006-03-20 10:33:11 +0000
>>> message:
>>>   (mbp) pycurl bugfixes, robert's knit performance stuff
>>>     ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>     merged: mbp at sourcefrog.net-20060320095825-ed99032ef9743cc8
>>>     committer: Martin Pool <mbp at sourcefrog.net>
>>>     branch nick: bzr.mbp.integration
>>>     timestamp: Mon 2006-03-20 09:58:25 +0000
>>>     message:
>>>       [merge] robert's knit-performance work
>>
>> I think we could omit the merged revision-id here; the indenting  
>> makes
>> it clear that it was merged.
>
> I think we should show some identifier though... perhaps the revno on
> that branch ?

That could be OK, but perhaps people would try to use it as a revno  
in the merged-to branch and get confused?
>
>>> +        # but we dont have a nice pattern matcher hooked up yet,  
>>> so:
>>> +        # we check for the indenting of the commit message:
>>> +        self.assertTrue('  merge branch 1' in out)
>>> +        self.assertTrue('      merge branch 2' in out)
>>> +        self.assertTrue('          branch 2' in out)
>>> +        self.assertTrue('      branch 1' in out)
>>> +        self.assertTrue('  first post' in out)
>>> +        self.assertEqual('', err)
>>
>> Well, you can compare the whole string to a sinlge long regexp, which
>> would allow you just stub out the revision-ids and the dates with .*.
>> (If there's a mismatch it may be a bit hard to see exactly where the
>> problem is.)
>
> I plan to bring in doctest style pattern matching which is -much-  
> nicer
> than regexps. Are you happy for this to ride until I do that ?

Yes.

-- 
Martin Pool