indygreg added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4436#69390, @durin42 wrote: > Hm, I worry this isn't explicit enough. Do you have a specific reason for why this is a thing we should do? Honestly, I did this to make the subsequent patches easier. The way I'm going with the partial clone work, it is likely we'll need the peer to consult the capabilities data structure directly instead of trying to map everything to a string lookup (which is what `capable(name)` is doing). Specifically, for things like `changesetdata`, we'll likely start exposing the available data fields in the capabilities dict and clients will want a way to check if a specific field is available. So there's a good chance `capable(name)` isn't long for this world. At least not on version 2 peers. Things are still evolving. REPOSITORY rHG Mercurial REVISION DETAIL https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4436 To: indygreg, #hg-reviewers Cc: durin42, mercurial-devel _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
