[MERGE] tags in log output

[Aaron Bentley]

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

John Arbash Meinel wrote:

> At one point we talked about making something like Revision or
> RevisionTree have more functions on it (which would be lazily
> evaluated). And then using something like that instead of passing around
> revision_ids.
> 
> However, as different branches have a different view about tags, tags
> can't really be a property of a Revision, though it could be a function
> on Revision which is passed a Branch.

Please make it a different kind of object, not a Revision.  Varying
public state of immutable objects is terribly icky.

You can even call it a BranchRevision if you want.  Or there's precedent
for RevisionInfo.

(And yes, there seems to be great need for BranchRevisionTree or similar.)

> I think it might be better to change the LogFormatter api itself, so it
> maintains a state of "this is what I'm logging", and that object can
> gain more attributes when more information is available. Which is, in
> essence, what Kent is talking about, only doing it on a helper object
> rather than Revision.

I don't follow how this is the same as what Kent is talking about.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGHlTp0F+nu1YWqI0RAil3AJwPHBV84qsvqFkgU2o2zaISi2hjYACdG6zE
J7dghSEs7rk+WoFYA/qYVYc=
=IYAN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----