angel.ezquerra added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D5495#82036, @yuja wrote: > > I think it would be a good idea to make the "branch" arguments more flexible. One option could be to use a stringmatcher to add support for regular expressions as you suggest. I can look into that. However there may be some other options worth exploring. The one you suggest is very interesting although I find the syntax a bit complicated for the common use cases that I want to enable which are: > > > > 1. Ignore merges from the same branch, which in a named-branch based branching strategy are usually irrelevant > > 2. Look into merges with a specific branch (e.g. which branches have been merged with the default branch)? > > > > In my experience those two are the ones that are the most common and I think we should try to make the easy to use. That is, I think that even if mercurial had a filter function like the one you propose I would still want to be able to express those 2 common merge properties in a simple way. > > Yep, I agree with that. > > > That being said, I really like your idea since I often find myself being unable to express what I want with a revset (as powerful as those are) because of the lack of a filtering mechanism. Adding a generic filter function would be very useful indeed. I'm not sure if the syntax you propose would work as is though. It seems that it would need a new "&" operator? In any case I believe that it is out of the scope of this particular set of patches. Do you agree? > > Yes. Actually I have a PoC-level implementation of generic filtering predicate, > which can be reviewed separately. > > > If so I can focus on improving this patch by adding the stringmatcher as you suggest (as it seems I'm not the only one who thinks this would be useful). Is that ok? > > Sounds good to me. To be clear, I want `'withbranch'` instead of > `'*withbranch'`, because the withbranch option doesn't look like a first-class > parameter of the `merge()` predicate. This would not make it possible to select multiple "merged with" branches by doing: hg log -r "merge(feature1, feature2)" Instead I guess you are proposing that for that use case we force the user to do: hg log -r "merge('re:(feature1|feature2)') Did I understand you correctly? REPOSITORY rHG Mercurial REVISION DETAIL https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D5495 To: angel.ezquerra, #hg-reviewers Cc: pulkit, yuja, mercurial-devel _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
