[MERGE] Clean up pull -v

Aaron Bentley aaron at aaronbentley.com
Fri Jan 2 02:19:26 GMT 2009


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

Here's a slightly evolved version of my patch.

It doesn't change most of the areas that were contentious, because
Martin Pool has agreed with me that we shouldn't mark useful functions
private merely because we have a pending cleanup.

It does update pull -v to use show_branch_changes.  It also fixes a bug
that had caused push -v to only show logs on the initial push.

Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>>>>>> "aaron" == Aaron Bentley <aaron at aaronbentley.com> writes:
 > But if they were less public functions in bzrlib.log, it would be
> easier to refactor them so that show_log is used consistently
> everywhere.

Not addressed.  See above.

>     >> Why don't you respect the log_format parameter here ?
> 
>     aaron> There's no way for a user to specify a log format
>     aaron> anyhow,
> 
> Yet. But I did an RFC about the showing revisions in a consistent
> way across all bzr commands and that includes allowing user to
> specify their preferred log format from the command line (in
> addition to the one you care and love in branch.conf :).

I believe it will be a trivial addition when the time comes.  For now,
YAGNI.

>     >> [show_flat_log] clearly duplicate[s] some code present in bzrlib.log.
> 
>     aaron> I don't think it does.
> 
> It's a combination of _linear_view_revisions + show_log.

I can't use show_log.  If I could, I wouldn't have written
show_flat_log.  _linear_view_revisions is nothing like show_flat_log--
The equivalent functionality would be in get_history_change.

> In summary: I didn't vote reject, this is better than what we
> have. I didn't vote tweak either because I thought I was asking
> too much for a bare tweak. So I voted resubmit asking for the
> functions to be made private so that the work I plan to do on log
> is not made more complicated than it already is.

But on the point of making the functions private, Martin contradicted
you, so I think you should have done a re-review.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkldea4ACgkQ0F+nu1YWqI0efACfW+PSrbHZ39JIsiUtVN470Pak
Q5wAn11tziPLNBc+h791JI6CEC9x5lMt
=5Cau
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pull-push-v-nice.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 25496 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090101/3f958da6/attachment-0001.bin 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pull-push-v-nice.patch.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 72 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090101/3f958da6/attachment-0001.pgp 


More information about the bazaar mailing list