We'll eventually have a "experimental.copies.read-from=changeset-only"
option too and I don't want to spread the logic for determining if we
should use changeset-centric of filelog-centric algorithms.
Details
- Reviewers
- None
- Group Reviewers
hg-reviewers - Commits
- rHG27475ae67676: copies: extract function for deciding whether to use changeset-centric algos
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rHG Mercurial
- Lint
Automatic diff as part of commit; lint not applicable. - Unit
Automatic diff as part of commit; unit tests not applicable.
Event Timeline
mercurial/copies.py | ||
---|---|---|
163 | I initially didn't have use and found it less clear. I also think "use changeset-centric" sounds weird. Maybe just changesetcentric as you said then, but that also seems unclear. It feels like we're working around D2010. I can accept that we don't want to queue that, but I don't really like any of the shorter names either. Maybe the current name is fine given the docstring? |
mercurial/copies.py | ||
---|---|---|
163 | Or maybe there's another name that would work? Maybe usecontextbasedalgo? Or shouldgetcopiesfromcontext? Other suggestions? |
mercurial/copies.py | ||
---|---|---|
163 | Does that mean you're okay with the current form of this patch? |
mercurial/copies.py | ||
---|---|---|
163 | Yes. |
maybe we need to have D2010, but we can drop algo (and maybe use also) from the name I guess.