Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Obsoleting abrowse

[Mikhael Goikhman]

On 31 Jul 2005 14:10:37 +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> 
> About limit, I finaly put only the ^, not the $, because otherwise,
> limit can be used only to show one branch, which is never what you
> want with browse.
> 
> Do you prefer a prefix search or a full string search by default?

There are different cases depending on options, and I think the abrowse
behaviour is very good. At least in the exact (non-regexp) mode.

In another email you wrote:

> That's what I did first, but actually, a full match is not very
> meaningfull: You don't want to use [ar]browse to display a single
> revision.
 
It seems there is some misunderstanding. Please take abrowse as a model.
It never gets a single revision as a limit. Limit is either version or
branch or category or archive, depending on other options. You may even
pass a more specific limit and abrowse will ignore the appropriate tail.

> > If you want to remove "abrowse", does this mean you remove these options
> > (that we use in the frontends) without providing alternatives:
> >
> >   --categories, --branches, --versions
> 
> I was hoping that no one would use those :-(.
> 
> Since bazaar is going towards a flattened namespace, I thought they
> would become useless in the future. rbrowse is already going in that
> direction and does not display categories and branches individually,
> but instead something like this:
> 
> address@hidden
>   authinfo--main--0
>     base-0 ... patch-2
>   bazaar--a-test-for-file-history--1.5
>     base-0 ... patch-2
>   bazaar--abrowse-deprecated--1.5
>     base-0 ... patch-4
>   bazaar--archive-mirror--1.4
>     base-0 ... patch-1
>   bazaar--archive-mirror--1.5

Like I said, this needlesly spends slow network resources if someone only
wants to see a list of versions (or dare I say, categories).

> Anyway, if you want to see categories and branches, aren't "baz
> categories" and "baz branches" more appropriate?

It is just that these commands do not support all "abrowse" options.
I am not against to combine all these commands into one main "browse".
But I also don't see any problem to also have useful shortcut commands.

> BTW, "browse" has a --versions option, but not with the same output
> 
> I realize I should display this format only with --no-tree-view.

Yes, I see the value in both views.

> >     these are needed to greately speed up the output and not needlesly
> >     traverse revision (patch-log) directories
> 
> With tla 1.0 archives, yes. With baz flattened archives, it shouldn't
> make any difference.

To generate the "base-0 ... patch-399" line you should enter into
every revision container directory.

>   -r                       Reverse patch logs

Please restore --reverse.

>   --show-sealed            Do not hide sealed branches

This is a change in behaviour ((arguably serious). Since I want to use
the old behaviour, some shortcut like -S may be nice. (Actually, I would
rather use a more intuitive --all for this, but it is already taken...)

>   -m, --modified FILE      Show revisions modifying FILE

--affecting, --touching? I mean, are the file renames included here?

>   -k, --kind               show each revision kind (import, changeset or id)

s/id/tag/?

>   -C, --cacherevs          show cached revisions
>   --desc                   implies -s -c -D -k -C

Hmm, this last bit is a change in behaviour too.

Regards,
Mikhael.