[MERGE] log mainline only by default

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:01:41 -0500, John Arbash Meinel wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Brian de Alwis wrote:
>> On 26-Mar-2009, at 11:46 AM, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
>>> People have already had problems with "I merged and now my revisions
>>> are gone". Which has happened because Loggerhead doesn't show merged
>>> revisions anymore (except for a tiny link that is really hard to
>>> understand), and because of them aliasing "ls = ls --short" and
>>> forgetting that it changed things.
>>>
>>> Especially people coming from other systems expect "bzr log" to show
>>> everything. We can get away with not doing it, but we should explain
>>> how they can get the rest.
>> 
>> 
>> +1 from me.  Maybe something in the revno: line?  For example:
>> 
>>     revno: 118 (has child revisions)
>>     committer: Brian de Alwis <brian.de.alwis at usask.ca> branch nick:
>>     gt-mpee
>>     timestamp: Sun 2009-01-25 21:04:45 -0600 message:
>> 
>> Brian.
>> 
>> 
> Well, we use [merge] in 'bzr log --short', we could do something similar
> here.
> 
> The issue is that it isn't clear that [merge] means you can use '-n0' to
> show them. So you could do:
>     revno: 118 [merge use -n0 to see children] committer: Brian de Alwis
>     <brian.de.alwis at usask.ca> branch nick: gt-mpee
>     timestamp: Sun 2009-01-25 21:04:45 -0600 message:
> 
> But that is a bit ugly. I was thinking more for a single comment at the
> beginning or end of the log output, and maybe [merge] on the actual
> revisions affected.
>
I still think "-n0" is a bit magic and not very discoverable. I'd like to 
see a separate option, e.g. --show-merged-revisions, as that would 
probably be a bit clearer.

Cheers,

Jelmer