[MERGE] 'bzr annotate' shows dotted revnos and --show-ids

[Vincent Ladeuil]

>>>>> "jam" == John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> writes:

    jam> Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
    >>>>>>> "jam" == John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> writes:
    >> 
    jam> The attached patch updates 'bzr annotate' in 2
    jam> ways. First, it shows dotted revnos by default, instead
    jam> of showing 'merge'. Second, it allows you to specify
    jam> --show-ids and it will display revision ids instead of
    jam> revnos.
    >> 
    >> Wow. Very nice.
    >> 
    >> What about making _annotate_file a public function ?
    >> gannotate is currently doing mostly the same job but need to
    >> duplicate the code which is not nice.
    >> 
    >> It also maintain a cache between revids and revno but in a
    >> slightly different way, so may be given access to your
    >> revision_id_to_revno mapping can be reused too.
    >> 
    >> Vincent

    jam> Well we already have 'annotate_file' which is the public
    jam> function.  We certainly could refactor it in some useful
    jam> way. I'm not sure what would be the most useful for
    jam> something like gannotate. So what if you do the
    jam> refactoring, along with fixing gannotate to use it?

No problem. I didn't because Aaron was the author of both the
versions and I didn't want to step on his toes. If it's not a
problem for him, I'll give it a try (Aaron, do not hesitate to
let your toes yell or give useful suggestions ;).

    jam> Maybe we could call the function annotate_to_lines, or
    jam> something like that.

    jam> Though I think gannotate's working method would be quite
    jam> different.  Because it is longer lived, and wants to
    jam> display the information in the bottom half, it should
    jam> extract the mapping first, and pass it into the helper
    jam> function.

    jam> There are enough differences between what gannotate
    jam> wants, and what annotate_file is currently doing, that
    jam> I'm not positive if it is worth it. It really isn't a
    jam> whole lot of code.

Yeah, but the dotted revno stuff was indeed coded two times, so
may be we can avoid another future double-handling...

    Vincent