James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> writes: > 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.
Ok, Thanks for reviewing it, -- Rich
