hooper added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> martinvonz wrote in fix.py:559-570
> Would the thing that processes this metadata usually not care to aggregate
> per fixer? If they did, it seems they would now have to look for a
> `fixer-applied='my-fixer'` entry and then take the metadata from the
> preceding entry. Did you consider instead making this function return an
> entry like `{fixername: metadatajson}` (and leave `metadatajson` as None if
> `not fixer.shouldoutputmetadata()`)?
I think we had some other possibilities in mind, but after trying it, I think
your idea is cleaner for expected use cases. I don't think it makes anything
harder, but it makes some things easier. The diff is pretty small.
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D6167
To: hooper, #hg-reviewers, durin42
Cc: martinvonz, lothiraldan, durin42, indygreg, mercurial-devel
_______________________________________________
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
