> > 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?
Not sure what problem you are trying to solve. To make such a script
useful, users would actually have to use it, instead of using what they
use now, right? If so, how does that help me with patches that don't
have this form?
If I can get users to use something different, any of "diff without
--git", "export with or without --git", "outgoing with or without --git"
would do (although outgoing uses a localized header, which would make
it more difficult to parse).
Regards,
Martin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4