indygreg added a comment.

  After coding up a handful of patches to switch to the new interface, I 
concede that I like the use of methods on the existing API. However, it is 
important for protocol version 2 that the peer interface switch to futures. I'm 
very reluctant to change the return value of peer APIs because that would 
likely be a difficult API break. I would be OK with exposing attributes on the 
command executor instance that magically route to commands. That's how the 
existing `iterbatch()` interface works. While the code is a bit wonky, it would 
work.

REPOSITORY
  rHG Mercurial

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D3267

To: indygreg, #hg-reviewers
Cc: mercurial-devel
_______________________________________________
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel

Reply via email to