[MERGE] add stop_rule to Branch.iter_merge_sorted_revisions()

[Martin Albisetti]

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:28 PM, John Arbash Meinel
<john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:
>> If *Branch* had a simple first_ancestor() method, then I'd probably be
>> OK with dropping stop_rule and always making it 'exclude'. But even then,
>> we'd cover the exclude and with-merges cases but not the include one so
>> easily. (Martin Albisetti wants include for Loggerhead btw.)
>
> I'm wondering if he actually wants that, or if what he wants is
> 'with-merges' because Loggerhead is trying to reproduce the same output
> that 'bzr log' is generating.
>
> I don't know the Loggerhead internals, but from what I've seen at least
> the "changes" pages seems like an HTML beautification around 'bzr log'.

With the difference that we don't display merged revs (for now), so we
go through the mainline, find out what files where changed in each of
it's merged revisions, and display the mainline + all files changed.
This is the only thing we're currently caching, due to how expensive
it is to get all the files changed in a mainline revision.

That said, what would be the main difference between include and with-merges?


-- 
Martin