smf added a comment.
Has there been discussion around extensions using this? Should there be
discussion now? Specifically, I'm trying to figure out how external things will
use this feature. Should it be a try/except? Or should modules set the access
level before looking for a (potentially)
smf added a comment.
Everything I was talking about in https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D468 was
meant to be posted here. (I am not doing well with phabricator it seems)
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D464
To: mbolin, quark, durin42,
smf added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D468#7912, @mbolin wrote:
> @smf As I put in the summary, I think this use of `tempfile.mkstemp()` is
different than the others in the codebase because it uses the `dir=` argument
to create a file in the working copy. As such, I'd
smf added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> durin42 wrote in cmdutil.py:3214
> I agree with smf: this patch is accomplishing a reasonable thing, but we
> should clean up this interface if we're going to use it. Let's add an action=
> parameter that's optional in the 4.4 cycle, with a devel
smf added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D468#7836, @quark wrote:
> In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D468#7833, @smf wrote:
>
> > Basically, I'd like a more unified approach for all types of temp files
(commit message, histedit, conflicts, etc).
>
>
> I think
smf added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D468#7909, @durin42 wrote:
> In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D468#7908, @smf wrote:
>
> > In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D468#7836, @quark wrote:
> >
> > > In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D468#7833, @smf wrote:
> > >
smf added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D468#7910, @smf wrote:
> That seems a bit over complicated to me. Why not just just use the
> random tmp as a directory instead of a file while renaming the file at
> the same time:
>
> /tmp/XYZ123/hg-editor (or HG_EDITOR or
smf added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D468#7916, @durin42 wrote:
> In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D468#7914, @smf wrote:
>
> > Basically, I was pondering aloud if '~' would be enough to future-proof
us and if we shouldn't just rename all temp files to something
smf added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D468#7920, @mbolin wrote:
> @smf so are you OK with this patch as-is?
Yeah, should be fine.
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D468
To: mbolin, #hg-reviewers, quark, durin42
Cc: smf,
smf added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D468#7748, @durin42 wrote:
> I don't object to this, but maybe others do. Reviewers not on vacation,
please feel encouraged to push this.
Well, I had some objections on the mailing list. It's sad that those don't
show up in
smf added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D468#7915, @mbolin wrote:
> @smf Personally, I think that https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D464 is a
better place to have that discussion.
Sigh. Yes, this is what I was confused about.
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
REVISION
smf added a comment.
Greg and Jun,
Before anyone else requests more changes or anything, this is a first time
contributor and I was trying to be a bit more flexible as a reviewer. I
actually queued the patch yesterday but due to the test failures, I haven't
pushed. I'll personally fix
smf added a comment.
I've looked this over today and have queued this up :-) Unfortunately,
though, the metadata doesn't seem right? I'm not getting your name or email
(nor timestamp) for the patch. Do you want me to use the same name from
smf added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D3665#58976, @smf wrote:
> In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D3665#58973, @johnstiles wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the assist, @smf ! I appreciate it.
>
>
> Sure, no problem :-)
>
> By the way, here's the diff of what I
smf added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D3665#58973, @johnstiles wrote:
> Thanks for the assist, @smf ! I appreciate it.
Sure, no problem :-)
By the way, here's the diff of what I changed:
diff --git a/hgext/beautifygraph.py b/hgext/beautifygraph.py
smf added a comment.
Could you send me the output of `hg export REV | head` or do you just want me
to add your name and not worry about the date/time, etc.?
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D3665
To: johnstiles, #hg-reviewers, spectral
Cc:
smf added a comment.
It seems I'm having email sending trouble ... going to attempt to send again
REPOSITORY
rHG Mercurial
REVISION DETAIL
https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D3715
To: martinvonz, #hg-reviewers, durin42
Cc: durin42, smf, lothiraldan, mercurial-devel
smf added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2873#52021, @indygreg wrote:
> Looks good!
I'm very heavily against this direction. Changing the behavior of push (even
in this extension) is something I've always considered outside the scope of
remotenames. Having another
smf added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2873#52100, @indygreg wrote:
> In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2873#52025, @smf wrote:
>
> > In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2873#52021, @indygreg wrote:
> >
> > > Looks good!
> >
> >
> > I'm very heavily against
smf added a comment.
Thanks for submitting your patch, it’s clearly a work of passion and I
appreciate that. I know feature branches is a much sought-after behavior.
However, I must express my objection to this direction in bookmarks. (apologies
in advance)
I think the core issue at
smf added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4312#77596, @idlsoft wrote:
> @smf I just noticed your name on
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/BookmarkUpdatePlan, which puts your comments
into a larger context.
> This would definitely be an improvement, and reduce the
smf added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4312#79509, @durin42 wrote:
> There's been some good discussion on this. I'm sympathetic to both
arguments here, namely: "we could improve bookmarks and make them less bad" and
"bookmarks are a dead end and nobody should use them
smf added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4312#79581, @durin42 wrote:
> In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4312#79573, @smf wrote:
>
> > In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4312#79509, @durin42 wrote:
> >
> > > There's been some good discussion on this. I'm
23 matches
Mail list logo
