(bah, sorry for dropping the list) On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Jun Wu <qu...@fb.com> wrote: >> >> Would it make more sense to have a "request" or "invocation" object that >> has a ui (and then, eventually, transitively has a config)? > > I'm not sure if I follow. The problem is that extensions only have "ui", > they do not have the "request" object. If they have, then the problem is > solved. > > If we add "ui.req", it's not better than "ui.args". > > If we "incrementally" replace "ui" with "req" everywhere, it's a huge > amount of work with all kinds of BC issues.
I feel obligated to remind you that we don't offer any stability promises on internals, so if this is a righteous cleanup (using req or similar instead of ui), it's probably worth doing in any case. Note that we're coming up on an interesting moment when we'll know extensions required significant cleanup anyway (python 3), so we might want to evaluate other internal structure cleanups while we're breaking everyone anyway. _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
