Richard Lowe writes: > James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> writes: > > > Richard Lowe writes: > >> I was initially against us supporting -u/-d (and I still am against > >> -d, so we still don't), > > > > What's the argument against overriding the date code? The argument > > for it would be symmetry (or parity) with the existing 'commit' > > options. > > I can't think of a good reason to ever do that with recommit. I can > see that Hg's commit should do it (to support a bridge-like > situation). > > It would bring parity with commit, but I'm against giving people > options that (I'd hope) we'd yell at them for ever using.
OK; that's good enough for me. (If I were doing it, I'd be tempted to go for parity, just because it's there, but I can live with "you shouldn't want to do this.") > > The change seems fine to me. One question, though. In the invocation > > of the squishdeltas() method in cdm.py (line 915), you use a mix of > > position-dependent and keyworded argument types. It seems odd to me, > > but maybe this is just normal Python and I should try to look away. ;-} > > I could pass it positionally, if you'd prefer. It's just always > struck me as fairly bad form to use keyword args (which can be passed > in any order), and then forcing the order they're taken by using them > positionally, sometimes. It was the mix of the two that seemed odd. I'm not worried about it, though, and you needn't change it. I was just wondering if you'd given it thought or if it just worked out that way. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
