[MERGE] RevisionSpec.in_history() should raise nicer errors

[John Arbash Meinel]

Martin Pool wrote:
> On 25 Aug 2006, John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:
>> since 0.11 opens up next week, attached is my updated diff.
>>
>> It cleans up a lot of places that were directly instantiating a
>> RevisionSpec object (which used __new__ to return a child class), and
>> instead creates a factory function get_revision_spec(), and deprecates
>> directly instantiating a RevisionSpec object.
> 
> I'd prefer this were RevisionSpec.from_string(), to make it more clear
> that it's a factory method.  I was saying to Robert & Andrew on Friday
> that I think 'get' is a weak noun to use in a method name, since it
> really just says it returns an object.  Thoughts?

Thanks. I like that a lot too. It defines the return value, and the
parameter value quite nicely.

> 
> I haven't read the rest in detail yet but it sounds good.
> 

Attached is the updated diff. Sorry it got so long, but there are a lot
of direct test updates, and refactoring of existing revspec code.

John
=:->
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: revspec-errors-55420.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 48504 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060828/7eb93331/attachment.bin 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060828/7eb93331/attachment.pgp