[RFC] tags in log output

[Alexander Belchenko]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Erik Bågfors пишет:
> On 4/5/07, Alexander Belchenko <bialix at ukr.net> wrote:
>> Yesterday I was thinking about this problem.
>> Your patch is OK for me, but I prefer to explicitly
>> pass list of tags for each revision as argument of LogFormatter.show()
>> method. Instead of using rev_tag_dict. May be I'm wrong.
> 
> Well, I see three ways of doing it really
> 1. pass list of tags for each revision as argument
> 2. Do what I do now
> 3. Pass branch into it, and let the formatter get to whatever it wants
> in the branch, including tags
> 
> 1 might be better than 2, I can change that if you want.
> 3 is probably most ugly, but it also allows new "things" in the
> future, for example, if we build something like "notes/annotations"
> for a specific revision, a log formatter could find that explicity and
> add it to the log output.
> 
> I would really think it would be cool to be able to annotate
> revisions, for example
> bzr note -r 15 'WARNING: introduces bug XXXX'
> bzr note -r 22 'Note: solves bug XXXX'.
> 
> I don't know exactly how useful this would be, but it would could be
> something nice for bugtracker integration for example.
> 
> Anyway, 3 will allow this kind of extension without changing the call.
> 
> I'm open to changing it to whatever you prefer.

I think from the testing point of view method 1 is preferable.
Because no one else spoke, I'd like to suggest this variant.

>> But I personally prefer to see tag info after revno, before commiter.
> 
> I actually think I agree. :)

:-)

>> Also it's not difficult to make "tag:"/"tags:" field based on tags
>> number.
>> But it's really nitpick.
> 
> I don't like that, I think the output should be easily
> grep:able/searchable/scriptable and a static "header" is easier to do
> that with.

OK. I understand.

>> And, what allowed symbols for tag ids? Do bzr allows space in tag id?
>> There is no explicit limitations on tag ids. So in the case when tag id
>> contains space your output could be slightly unclear for multiple tags.
> 
> True..
> 
> Well, if space is allowed, one could do
> tags: "tag with spaces" tag2
> or perhaps
> tags: "tag with spaces" "tag2"

Yes, this will be good.

If you rework your patch -- I'd like to give you +1.
Probably it requires whitebox test as well...
May be merge request will gain more reviews ;-)

[µ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGFibDzYr338mxwCURAr5PAKCUmYHjbVCSIdbRVDRVNHRciBOv1gCfdiVE
iIFsSCd3eV6ocpHxA07PtUo=
=I+RA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----