Separate history for tags
Stanimir Stamenkov
s7an10 at netscape.net
Sun Jul 4 13:29:50 UTC 2010
Sun, 04 Jul 2010 15:10:22 +0200, /Tony Mechelynck/:
> 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.
When filtering the log the graph could not be reconstructed, and it is
something I find very helpful (if not required) to read the history.
> 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.
Yes, I guess it would add complexity to the implementation but I don't
think it would add complexity for the users, at least for me (that's why
I'm questioning it).
Pretty much like the Subversion devs decided on how to do branching and
tagging - it simplifies the implementation a lot, but then adds so much
problems and complexity to the usage. Branching in Mercurial is quite
different beast, but then tagging is pretty much the same in every VCS.
--
Stanimir
More information about the Mercurial
mailing list