RFC: iter_changes with specific_files, status and commit

[Martin Pool]

2009/6/26 John Szakmeister <john at szakmeister.net>:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Martin Pool <mbp at sourcefrog.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>> I can't think of any problems at the moment.
>
> It's a bit weird for the user to provide a path asking about the
> status of X, and then having the command also tell you the status of
> Y.  That seems like a behavior we're going to have to explain to them.
>  Is it a big deal?  Perhaps not.  Is it unintuitive?  Definitely.

You asked for the status of b, and you're told some files that were
moved into b (or out of b.)  It might not be exactly what you expected
but it's not very surprising to me.

And of course it would be nice to have this come about by reducing
code divergence between commit and status, as is already happening
with iter_changes focussed patches.

-- 
Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>