RetroSearch Browse

Wed Mar 9 08:48:10 CET 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-March/109016.html

"Martin v. Loewis" writes:
 > > I’m of the opinion that hg diffs should always use the extended git
 > > format, given their usefulness.  A tool working with hg diffs that does
 > > not support this format is broken IMO.
 > 
 > IMO, it's "hg diff --git" that's broken, as it doesn't include the base 
 > revision (other formats, such as "hg export", do).

I agree that it's poor form to omit the revisions, and we should
supplicate Mercury at his temple.  But I don't see the problem for
Reitveld integration; they're easily available, no?  At least, so far
in the discussion the "two -r" form has been used, so this should do
the trick:

improved-hg-diff--git () {
    # usage: improved-hg-diff--git BASE TIP
    hg identify -i -r $1
    hg identify -i -r $2
    hg diff --git -r $1 -r $2
}

What am I missing?

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-March/109016.html below:

[Python-Dev] hg diff