Separate history for tags

[Tony Mechelynck]

On 04/07/10 13:14, Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
> I've just wondered (this may be discussed before?) why tagging is made
> part of the normal content history. For me it adds unnecessary clutter
> to it. Is it implemented as currently just for the sake of simplicity,
> and I guess more importantly backwards compatibility?
>
> Of course, tagging as operation which modifies the repository should be
> tracked but I envision it maintained in somewhat separate history, just
> as in Bugzilla one adds comments, e.g. content revisions, and there's
> separate "Activity" history which tracks changes to the meta data
> ("Assignee", "Status", etc.), e.g. tags.
>

I suppose it is a decision which the Mercurial devs made when they 
started planning the application.

As for clutter in the displays, I suppose nothing prevents you from 
defining a template which would omit tags (e.g. in the output of hg log) 
when ui.verbose is set to false.

OTOH, if there were several different histories (one for tags, one for 
files, one for manifests, etc.) all kept separate _and_ in sync, _that_ 
would IMHO be unnecessary clutter and unnecessary complexity.


Best regards,
Tony.
-- 
The goal of Computer Science is to build something that will last at
least until we've finished building it.