[RFC] proposed changes to log UI

[Robert Collins]

On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 20:22 +1000, Ian Clatworthy wrote:
> 
> After more reflection, I'm warming to the current approach, i.e.
> the decision to show merged revisions ought to be a function of
> the log formatter selected. The problem is that we don't have a
> standard formatter than produces long-like output for just
> mainline revisions. I'd like to add one along those lines.
> My suggested name is "linear". (It ought to perform identically
> to "short".)
> 
> >   a) I like --short a lot.
> >   b) I feel like we should be splitting out the differences from
> --short
> >      and --long
> >      So you have a way to say "bzr log --only-mainline
> >      --verbose-revisions", which gives the --short revisions, but
> the
> >      --long formatting.
> 
> I think --linear achieves that. It may even make a better default
> than --short.

I'm still unclear on why hiding the actual commits that made the work is
a good idea. We can identify the merge groupings without reading all of
history, or even just not indent them; our ability to keep the detail of
the merged revisions is one of the key benefits brought in with a DVCS
compared to e.g. CVS - I hesitate to just bb:reject at such an early
stage, but so far I haven't seen any explanation as to why this is
desirable.

-Rob



-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090115/ce7e91bf/attachment.pgp