Either way, we'll be deploying this to Mozilla's hg servers in the next few months and testing it out. Perhaps after it's been in production for some time we will have a stronger case for inclusion in core. :)

In D5194#77606, @martinvonz wrote:

Is this useful enough to others that it should live in the hg core repo? It doesn't seem like it to me, but maybe I'm wrong.

Throwing this up for review now, but there are a few things that could be done to improve this. A cache expiration policy might be useful, but is difficult to test with the S3 bucket expiration rules. It may also be desirable to be able to specify more than one S3 bucket/region/account in the future.

In D4283#65988, @indygreg wrote:

This seems like a strict improvement.

But the proper way to register web commands from extensions would be to go through the registrar API and have the extension loader look for a well-named symbol in each extension module that is loaded and hgweb would consult the registrar for active commands. In theory, this will only activate web commands on repositories that have an extension loaded.

Search for templatefilter in mercurial/extensions.py for an example of how all this works.

Would you be willing to try that approach? It doesn't have to be perfect. But we are moving to the registrar for extensions wishing to install well-defined things. And web commands fit that bill.

In D2904#48406, @yuja wrote:

Queued, thanks. Can you send a followup?

Abandoning, this was landed as another differential.