Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 4:01 AM, FUJIWARA Katsunori wrote: > At Fri, 3 Feb 2017 20:26:04 -0800, > Rodrigo Damazio wrote: > > > > [1 ] > > [1.1 ] > > Finally working on this again. > > On point which I discussed with Martin offline - which feels more > intuitive > > as a

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

At Fri, 3 Feb 2017 20:26:04 -0800, Rodrigo Damazio wrote: > > [1 ] > [1.1 ] > Finally working on this again. > On point which I discussed with Martin offline - which feels more intuitive > as a prefix, "root" or "abs"? (so, "rootfilesin" or "absfilesin"?) We think > it's "abs", but wanted to

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

Finally working on this again. On point which I discussed with Martin offline - which feels more intuitive as a prefix, "root" or "abs"? (so, "rootfilesin" or "absfilesin"?) We think it's "abs", but wanted to make sure that's OK with others. Thanks On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 3:15 AM, FUJIWARA

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

At Fri, 27 Jan 2017 15:14:38 -0800, Rodrigo Damazio wrote: > > [1 ] > [1.1 ] > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:03 AM, FUJIWARA Katsunori > wrote: > > > > > At Thu, 26 Jan 2017 17:27:17 -0800, > > Rodrigo Damazio wrote: > > > > > > [1 ] > > > [1.1 ] > > > All sounds very

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:03 AM, FUJIWARA Katsunori wrote: > > At Thu, 26 Jan 2017 17:27:17 -0800, > Rodrigo Damazio wrote: > > > > [1 ] > > [1.1 ] > > All sounds very reasonable, and "filesin:" or "rootfilesin:" LGTM. > > Is it OK for your solution that

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

At Thu, 26 Jan 2017 17:27:17 -0800, Rodrigo Damazio wrote: > > [1 ] > [1.1 ] > All sounds very reasonable, and "filesin:" or "rootfilesin:" LGTM. Is it OK for your solution that "rootfilesin:FOO" doesn't match against "file FOO", even though your patch posted in this thread made "files:FOO"

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

All sounds very reasonable, and "filesin:" or "rootfilesin:" LGTM. On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Martin von Zweigbergk < martinv...@google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:19 AM, FUJIWARA Katsunori > wrote: > > > > At Wed, 25 Jan 2017 20:54:37 -0800, > >

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:19 AM, FUJIWARA Katsunori wrote: > > At Wed, 25 Jan 2017 20:54:37 -0800, > Martin von Zweigbergk wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Rodrigo Damazio via Mercurial-devel >> wrote: >> > Getting back to

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

Getting back to this after the end-of-year hiatus (yes, I know it happens to be during another code freeze :) I seem to have good timing). On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Pierre-Yves David < pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org> wrote: > > > On 12/21/2016 04:21 AM, Rodrigo Damazio wrote: > >> If

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

On 12/21/2016 04:21 AM, Rodrigo Damazio wrote: If I got these two pieces right, it looks like we could just apply the improvement to 'visitdir' to 'set:your/glob/*' and have your usecase filled while not jumping into UI changes. Would that work for you ? Not without a third

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 5:47 AM, Pierre-Yves David < pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org> wrote: > > > On 12/20/2016 06:00 AM, Rodrigo Damazio wrote: > >> Unfortunately, while set would match the right files, because of the way >> the code is structured, it provides no way to not try visiting the >>

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

On 12/20/2016 06:00 AM, Rodrigo Damazio wrote: Unfortunately, while set would match the right files, because of the way the code is structured, it provides no way to not try visiting the directories inside the non-recursive match - the set needs to first collect all the files in all

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

Unfortunately, while set would match the right files, because of the way the code is structured, it provides no way to not try visiting the directories inside the non-recursive match - the set needs to first collect all the files in all subdirectories (match.py, _expandset) and then filter that

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

At Wed, 23 Nov 2016 19:55:16 -0800, Rodrigo Damazio wrote: > > Hi guys - any comments on the preferred way forward? > > (I do have a follow-up patch for optimizing visitdir accordingly, but don't > want to send it until this one is agreed upon) Sorry for long interval ! > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

Hi guys - any comments on the preferred way forward? (I do have a follow-up patch for optimizing visitdir accordingly, but don't want to send it until this one is agreed upon) On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Rodrigo Damazio wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:52 AM,

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

(sorry for late reply) At Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:02:48 -0700, Rodrigo Damazio wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:17 AM, FUJIWARA Katsunori > wrote: > > > > > At Tue, 25 Oct 2016 19:51:59 -0700, > > Rodrigo Damazio wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 4:31 PM,

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

Sending updated patch via pushgate (description changed). On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Rodrigo Damazio wrote: > It sounds like we'd like to do 3 somewhat orthogonal things: > - allow user to specify the directory the pattern is relative to > (root/cwd/any) > - allow

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

It sounds like we'd like to do 3 somewhat orthogonal things: - allow user to specify the directory the pattern is relative to (root/cwd/any) - allow the user to specify recursiveness/non-recursiveness consistently (not covered by the *path patterns, but could be the defined behavior for the globs)

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

On 10/22/2016 11:35 AM, Yuya Nishihara wrote: On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:19:24 -0700, Rodrigo Damazio wrote: The issue is that glob:foo/* is recursive in some cases - e.g. "hg files -I glob:contrib/*" in the hg repo gives me subdirectories of contrib recursively (including e.g.

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

At Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:12:07 -0400, Augie Fackler wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Yuya Nishihara wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:40:36 -0400, Augie Fackler wrote: > >> > On Oct 18, 2016, at 09:38, Yuya Nishihara wrote: > >> >> After coordinating on

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

The issue is that glob:foo/* is recursive in some cases - e.g. "hg files -I glob:contrib/*" in the hg repo gives me subdirectories of contrib recursively (including e.g. contrib/docker/apache-server, two levels down). After discussing a bit more offline with Martin: I'll check if that's a bug in

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:12:07 -0400, Augie Fackler wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Yuya Nishihara wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:40:36 -0400, Augie Fackler wrote: > >> > On Oct 18, 2016, at 09:38, Yuya Nishihara wrote: > >> >> After coordinating on irc

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Yuya Nishihara wrote: > On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:40:36 -0400, Augie Fackler wrote: >> > On Oct 18, 2016, at 09:38, Yuya Nishihara wrote: >> >> After coordinating on irc to figure out what this proposal actually >> >> is, I've noticed

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

> On Oct 18, 2016, at 09:38, Yuya Nishihara wrote: > >> After coordinating on irc to figure out what this proposal actually >> is, I've noticed that the semantics of this "exact" proposal are >> exactly what "glob" does today, which means (I think) that >> "files:foo/bar" should

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:07:36 -0400, Augie Fackler wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 02:46:52PM +0200, Pierre-Yves David wrote: > > On 10/18/2016 02:25 AM, Augie Fackler wrote: > > >On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 03:50:10PM +0200, Pierre-Yves David wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>On 10/08/2016 06:58 PM, Rodrigo

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 02:46:52PM +0200, Pierre-Yves David wrote: > > > On 10/18/2016 02:25 AM, Augie Fackler wrote: > >On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 03:50:10PM +0200, Pierre-Yves David wrote: > >> > >> > >>On 10/08/2016 06:58 PM, Rodrigo Damazio Bovendorp via Mercurial-devel wrote: > >>># HG changeset

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

On 10/18/2016 02:25 AM, Augie Fackler wrote: On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 03:50:10PM +0200, Pierre-Yves David wrote: On 10/08/2016 06:58 PM, Rodrigo Damazio Bovendorp via Mercurial-devel wrote: # HG changeset patch # User Rodrigo Damazio Bovendorp # Date 1475944120 25200 #

Re: [PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

On 10/08/2016 06:58 PM, Rodrigo Damazio Bovendorp via Mercurial-devel wrote: # HG changeset patch # User Rodrigo Damazio Bovendorp # Date 1475944120 25200 # Sat Oct 08 09:28:40 2016 -0700 # Node ID 545efe5a72efdce925a6a3fd3774b350c90b5c55 # Parent

[PATCH] match: adding non-recursive directory matching

# HG changeset patch # User Rodrigo Damazio Bovendorp # Date 1475944120 25200 # Sat Oct 08 09:28:40 2016 -0700 # Node ID 545efe5a72efdce925a6a3fd3774b350c90b5c55 # Parent dbcef8918bbdd8a64d9f79a37bcfa284a26f3a39 match: adding non-recursive directory matching This