| Submitter | Durham Goode |
|---|---|
| Date | May 13, 2014, 12:47 a.m. |
| Message ID | <2ca6a41546b166ca4915.1399942056@dev2000.prn2.facebook.com> |
| Download | mbox | patch |
| Permalink | /patch/4731/ |
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
Comments
On Mon, 12 May 2014 17:47:36 -0700 Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> wrote: > # HG changeset patch > # User Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> > # Date 1399684151 25200 > # Fri May 09 18:09:11 2014 -0700 > # Node ID 2ca6a41546b166ca491537d85729fc3e9c42c01b > # Parent 3e64ef576f5da47348903d25727d5e7c6c6a046a > update: specify custom conflict markers for update (BC) > > Add custom conflict markers 'working copy' and 'destination' for doing hg update > when there are conflicts between your working copy and the destination. I find the term "destination" confusing in that context. Why not "repository"? Regards Antoine.
On 5/15/14, 4:33 AM, "Antoine Pitrou" <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote: >On Mon, 12 May 2014 17:47:36 -0700 >Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> wrote: >> # HG changeset patch >> # User Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> >> # Date 1399684151 25200 >> # Fri May 09 18:09:11 2014 -0700 >> # Node ID 2ca6a41546b166ca491537d85729fc3e9c42c01b >> # Parent 3e64ef576f5da47348903d25727d5e7c6c6a046a >> update: specify custom conflict markers for update (BC) >> >> Add custom conflict markers 'working copy' and 'destination' for doing >>hg update >> when there are conflicts between your working copy and the destination. > >I find the term "destination" confusing in that context. Why not >"repository"? > >Regards > >Antoine. I don¹t think normal users have a great understanding of the difference between the working copy and the repository. Œdestination¹ at least differentiates itself from working copy in that the working copy is your files, and destination is where you¹re going, especially since this only shows up during an hg update.
On Thu, 15 May 2014 21:05:53 +0000 Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> wrote: > > I don¹t think normal users have a great understanding of the difference > between the working copy and the repository. Œdestination¹ at least > differentiates itself from working copy in that the working copy is your > files, and destination is where you¹re going, especially since this only > shows up during an hg update. I'm not sure how someone can use hg without understanding the difference between working copy and repository. On the other hand the word "destination" is confusing here. You claim that the "destination" is where you fetch the changes *from*, but my own intuition is that the "destination" of an update is the working copy, i.e. where you put the changes *into*. Regards Antoine. PS : I don't know what you compose your e-mails with, but the charset declaration in your headers looks wrong here (see above quotation of your message as seen from here).
On 5/15/14, 2:18 PM, "Antoine Pitrou" <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote: >On Thu, 15 May 2014 21:05:53 +0000 >Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> wrote: >> >> I don¹t think normal users have a great understanding of the difference >> between the working copy and the repository. Œdestination¹ at least >> differentiates itself from working copy in that the working copy is your >> files, and destination is where you¹re going, especially since this only >> shows up during an hg update. > >I'm not sure how someone can use hg without understanding the >difference between working copy and repository. >On the other hand the word "destination" is confusing here. You claim >that the "destination" is where you fetch the changes *from*, but my >own intuition is that the "destination" of an update is the working >copy, i.e. where you put the changes *into*. I’ll let others chime in here. I think of ‘hg update’ as you moving to another spot in the repository, hence destination makes sense in my mind. > >Regards > >Antoine. > > >PS : I don't know what you compose your e-mails with, but the charset >declaration in your headers looks wrong here (see above quotation of >your message as seen from here). I tried changing my email settings to be UTF-8. Let’s see how this one turns out.
On Thu, 15 May 2014 21:40:49 +0000 Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> wrote: > > I tried changing my email settings to be UTF-8. Let’s see how this one > turns out. Thanks, it looks fine now. Regards Antoine.
On 05/15/2014 02:18 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Thu, 15 May 2014 21:05:53 +0000 > Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> wrote: >> I don¹t think normal users have a great understanding of the difference >> between the working copy and the repository. Œdestination¹ at least >> differentiates itself from working copy in that the working copy is your >> files, and destination is where you¹re going, especially since this only >> shows up during an hg update. > I'm not sure how someone can use hg without understanding the > difference between working copy and repository. > On the other hand the word "destination" is confusing here. You claim > that the "destination" is where you fetch the changes *from*, but my > own intuition is that the "destination" of an update is the working > copy, i.e. where you put the changes *into*. What about 'target'? I can see where the confusion about 'destination' comes from, but I think 'repository' is far more confusing.
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> wrote: > On 5/15/14, 4:33 AM, "Antoine Pitrou" <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote: > > >On Mon, 12 May 2014 17:47:36 -0700 > >Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> wrote: > >> # HG changeset patch > >> # User Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> > >> # Date 1399684151 25200 > >> # Fri May 09 18:09:11 2014 -0700 > >> # Node ID 2ca6a41546b166ca491537d85729fc3e9c42c01b > >> # Parent 3e64ef576f5da47348903d25727d5e7c6c6a046a > >> update: specify custom conflict markers for update (BC) > >> > >> Add custom conflict markers 'working copy' and 'destination' for doing > >>hg update > >> when there are conflicts between your working copy and the destination. > > > >I find the term "destination" confusing in that context. Why not > >"repository"? > > > >Regards > > > >Antoine. > > I don¹t think normal users have a great understanding of the difference > between the working copy and the repository. Œdestination¹ at least > differentiates itself from working copy in that the working copy is your > files, and destination is where you¹re going, especially since this only > shows up during an hg update. > > I think this change made it harder to understand merge margers (granted i'm used to local/other) destination just confused me and i had to re-read the patch description when looking at the test output. If we are going to replace the names, can't we do it with the nomenclature used in mercurial, rather than introduce another word *not* commonly used in merge markers? working copy/repo seems sensible to me. > _______________________________________________ > Mercurial-devel mailing list > Mercurial-devel@selenic.com > http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel >
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:11 AM, Olle <olle.lundberg@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> wrote: >> >> On 5/15/14, 4:33 AM, "Antoine Pitrou" <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote: >> >> >On Mon, 12 May 2014 17:47:36 -0700 >> >Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> wrote: >> >> # HG changeset patch >> >> # User Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> >> >> # Date 1399684151 25200 >> >> # Fri May 09 18:09:11 2014 -0700 >> >> # Node ID 2ca6a41546b166ca491537d85729fc3e9c42c01b >> >> # Parent 3e64ef576f5da47348903d25727d5e7c6c6a046a >> >> update: specify custom conflict markers for update (BC) >> >> >> >> Add custom conflict markers 'working copy' and 'destination' for doing >> >>hg update >> >> when there are conflicts between your working copy and the destination. >> > >> >I find the term "destination" confusing in that context. Why not >> >"repository"? >> > >> >Regards >> > >> >Antoine. >> >> I don¹t think normal users have a great understanding of the difference >> between the working copy and the repository. Œdestination¹ at least >> differentiates itself from working copy in that the working copy is your >> files, and destination is where you¹re going, especially since this only >> shows up during an hg update. >> > I think this change made it harder to understand merge margers (granted i'm > used to local/other) destination just confused me and i had to re-read the > patch description when looking at the test output. > > If we are going to replace the names, can't we do it with the nomenclature > used in mercurial, rather than introduce another word *not* commonly used in > merge markers? > > working copy/repo seems sensible to me. I also find "working copy / destination" confusing. The destination part is more or less fine (although perhaps "target" or "update target" would be better) but the "working copy" is ambiguous IMHO. What working copy? The one before or after the update? When I think about a merge during an update I tend to think of the working copy as the _result_ of the merge which is in fact the destination! (i.e. to me "working copy / source" would make more sense than "working copy / destination"). Instead I would suggest using "source" or "update source" (i.e. "source / destination"). That being said, I also find that adding custom markers may make things more confusing than they were unless they are very, very clear and consistent. Otherwise we risk introducing a bunch of new concepts that are only used in some very particular contexts. Could someone make list of the proposed markers for all commands that require them, so that they can all be seen in one single place and commented on? I think it would make it easier to make sure that all of them are more or less consistent. Cheers, Angel
On 05/15/2014 11:22 PM, Angel Ezquerra wrote: > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:11 AM, Olle <olle.lundberg@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 5/15/14, 4:33 AM, "Antoine Pitrou" <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 12 May 2014 17:47:36 -0700 >>>> Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> wrote: >>>>> # HG changeset patch >>>>> # User Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> >>>>> # Date 1399684151 25200 >>>>> # Fri May 09 18:09:11 2014 -0700 >>>>> # Node ID 2ca6a41546b166ca491537d85729fc3e9c42c01b >>>>> # Parent 3e64ef576f5da47348903d25727d5e7c6c6a046a >>>>> update: specify custom conflict markers for update (BC) >>>>> >>>>> Add custom conflict markers 'working copy' and 'destination' for doing >>>>> hg update >>>>> when there are conflicts between your working copy and the destination. >>>> >>>> I find the term "destination" confusing in that context. Why not >>>> "repository"? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Antoine. >>> >>> I don¹t think normal users have a great understanding of the difference >>> between the working copy and the repository. Œdestination¹ at least >>> differentiates itself from working copy in that the working copy is your >>> files, and destination is where you¹re going, especially since this only >>> shows up during an hg update. >>> >> I think this change made it harder to understand merge margers (granted i'm >> used to local/other) destination just confused me and i had to re-read the >> patch description when looking at the test output. >> >> If we are going to replace the names, can't we do it with the nomenclature >> used in mercurial, rather than introduce another word *not* commonly used in >> merge markers? >> >> working copy/repo seems sensible to me. > > I also find "working copy / destination" confusing. The destination > part is more or less fine (although perhaps "target" or "update > target" would be better) but the "working copy" is ambiguous IMHO. > What working copy? The one before or after the update? When I think > about a merge during an update I tend to think of the working copy as > the _result_ of the merge which is in fact the destination! (i.e. to > me "working copy / source" would make more sense than "working copy / > destination"). Instead I would suggest using "source" or "update > source" (i.e. "source / destination"). If working copy is confusing, what about "uncommitted changes"? > […] > > Could someone make list of the proposed markers for all commands that > require them, so that they can all be seen in one single place and > commented on? I think it would make it easier to make sure that all of > them are more or less consistent. What about you?
On 05/15/2014 02:18 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Thu, 15 May 2014 21:05:53 +0000 > Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> wrote: >> >> I don¹t think normal users have a great understanding of the difference >> between the working copy and the repository. Œdestination¹ at least >> differentiates itself from working copy in that the working copy is your >> files, and destination is where you¹re going, especially since this only >> shows up during an hg update. > > I'm not sure how someone can use hg without understanding the > difference between working copy and repository. You will be very surprise about the very thin amount of knowledge of average user.
El 16/05/2014 08:29, "Pierre-Yves David" <pierre-yves.david@ens-lyon.org> escribió: > > > > On 05/15/2014 11:22 PM, Angel Ezquerra wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:11 AM, Olle <olle.lundberg@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/15/14, 4:33 AM, "Antoine Pitrou" <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 12 May 2014 17:47:36 -0700 >>>>> Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> # HG changeset patch >>>>>> # User Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> >>>>>> # Date 1399684151 25200 >>>>>> # Fri May 09 18:09:11 2014 -0700 >>>>>> # Node ID 2ca6a41546b166ca491537d85729fc3e9c42c01b >>>>>> # Parent 3e64ef576f5da47348903d25727d5e7c6c6a046a >>>>>> update: specify custom conflict markers for update (BC) >>>>>> >>>>>> Add custom conflict markers 'working copy' and 'destination' for doing >>>>>> hg update >>>>>> when there are conflicts between your working copy and the destination. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I find the term "destination" confusing in that context. Why not >>>>> "repository"? >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Antoine. >>>> >>>> >>>> I don¹t think normal users have a great understanding of the difference >>>> between the working copy and the repository. Œdestination¹ at least >>>> differentiates itself from working copy in that the working copy is your >>>> files, and destination is where you¹re going, especially since this only >>>> shows up during an hg update. >>>> >>> I think this change made it harder to understand merge margers (granted i'm >>> used to local/other) destination just confused me and i had to re-read the >>> patch description when looking at the test output. >>> >>> If we are going to replace the names, can't we do it with the nomenclature >>> used in mercurial, rather than introduce another word *not* commonly used in >>> merge markers? >>> >>> working copy/repo seems sensible to me. >> >> >> I also find "working copy / destination" confusing. The destination >> part is more or less fine (although perhaps "target" or "update >> target" would be better) but the "working copy" is ambiguous IMHO. >> What working copy? The one before or after the update? When I think >> about a merge during an update I tend to think of the working copy as >> the _result_ of the merge which is in fact the destination! (i.e. to >> me "working copy / source" would make more sense than "working copy / >> destination"). Instead I would suggest using "source" or "update >> source" (i.e. "source / destination"). > > > If working copy is confusing, what about "uncommitted changes"? > To me an update modifies the working directory by changing its contents from a source revision to a target revision. So I think I would prefer "update source", "source revision", "original revision", "starting revision" or something the sort. >> […] > > > >> >> Could someone make list of the proposed markers for all commands that >> require them, so that they can all be seen in one single place and >> commented on? I think it would make it easier to make sure that all of >> them are more or less consistent. > > > What about you? I wish I could but I don't think I have all the related patches. Angel
On 05/15/2014 11:44 PM, Angel Ezquerra wrote: > > El 16/05/2014 08:29, "Pierre-Yves David" <pierre-yves.david@ens-lyon.org > <mailto:pierre-yves.david@ens-lyon.org>> escribió: > > > > > > > > On 05/15/2014 11:22 PM, Angel Ezquerra wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:11 AM, Olle <olle.lundberg@gmail.com > <mailto:olle.lundberg@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Durham Goode <durham@fb.com > <mailto:durham@fb.com>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 5/15/14, 4:33 AM, "Antoine Pitrou" <solipsis@pitrou.net > <mailto:solipsis@pitrou.net>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Mon, 12 May 2014 17:47:36 -0700 > >>>>> Durham Goode <durham@fb.com <mailto:durham@fb.com>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> # HG changeset patch > >>>>>> # User Durham Goode <durham@fb.com <mailto:durham@fb.com>> > >>>>>> # Date 1399684151 25200 > >>>>>> # Fri May 09 18:09:11 2014 -0700 > >>>>>> # Node ID 2ca6a41546b166ca491537d85729fc3e9c42c01b > >>>>>> # Parent 3e64ef576f5da47348903d25727d5e7c6c6a046a > >>>>>> update: specify custom conflict markers for update (BC) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Add custom conflict markers 'working copy' and 'destination' for > doing > >>>>>> hg update > >>>>>> when there are conflicts between your working copy and the > destination. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I find the term "destination" confusing in that context. Why not > >>>>> "repository"? > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards > >>>>> > >>>>> Antoine. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I don¹t think normal users have a great understanding of the > difference > >>>> between the working copy and the repository. Œdestination¹ at least > >>>> differentiates itself from working copy in that the working copy > is your > >>>> files, and destination is where you¹re going, especially since > this only > >>>> shows up during an hg update. > >>>> > >>> I think this change made it harder to understand merge margers > (granted i'm > >>> used to local/other) destination just confused me and i had to > re-read the > >>> patch description when looking at the test output. > >>> > >>> If we are going to replace the names, can't we do it with the > nomenclature > >>> used in mercurial, rather than introduce another word *not* > commonly used in > >>> merge markers? > >>> > >>> working copy/repo seems sensible to me. > >> > >> > >> I also find "working copy / destination" confusing. The destination > >> part is more or less fine (although perhaps "target" or "update > >> target" would be better) but the "working copy" is ambiguous IMHO. > >> What working copy? The one before or after the update? When I think > >> about a merge during an update I tend to think of the working copy as > >> the _result_ of the merge which is in fact the destination! (i.e. to > >> me "working copy / source" would make more sense than "working copy / > >> destination"). Instead I would suggest using "source" or "update > >> source" (i.e. "source / destination"). > > > > > > If working copy is confusing, what about "uncommitted changes"? > > > > To me an update modifies the working directory by changing its contents > from a source revision to a target revision. So I think I would prefer > "update source", "source revision", "original revision", "starting > revision" or something the sort. The "local" here is not just a "revision", it is a revision + additional changes. Additing "revision" anywhere in the name is going to add a lot of confusion. > >> […] > > > > > > >> > >> Could someone make list of the proposed markers for all commands that > >> require them, so that they can all be seen in one single place and > >> commented on? I think it would make it easier to make sure that all of > >> them are more or less consistent. > > > > > > What about you? > > I wish I could but I don't think I have all the related patches. If you already deleted the, I'm sure the list archive have them.
On Thu, 15 May 2014 23:31:06 -0700 Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@ens-lyon.org> wrote: > > > On 05/15/2014 02:18 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > On Thu, 15 May 2014 21:05:53 +0000 > > Durham Goode <durham@fb.com> wrote: > >> > >> I don¹t think normal users have a great understanding of the difference > >> between the working copy and the repository. Œdestination¹ at least > >> differentiates itself from working copy in that the working copy is your > >> files, and destination is where you¹re going, especially since this only > >> shows up during an hg update. > > > > I'm not sure how someone can use hg without understanding the > > difference between working copy and repository. > > You will be very surprise about the very thin amount of knowledge of > average user. But how can they make sense of the word "destination"? At least "repository" is crystal clear and unambiguous for someone who knows a minimum about hg. Regards Antoine.
Patch
diff --git a/mercurial/hg.py b/mercurial/hg.py --- a/mercurial/hg.py +++ b/mercurial/hg.py @@ -483,7 +483,8 @@ When overwrite is set, changes are clobbered, merged else returns stats (see pydoc mercurial.merge.applyupdates)""" - return mergemod.update(repo, node, False, overwrite, None) + return mergemod.update(repo, node, False, overwrite, None, + labels=['working copy', 'destination']) def update(repo, node): """update the working directory to node, merging linear changes""" diff --git a/tests/test-merge-revert2.t b/tests/test-merge-revert2.t --- a/tests/test-merge-revert2.t +++ b/tests/test-merge-revert2.t @@ -57,11 +57,11 @@ @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ added file1 another line of text - +<<<<<<< local: c3fa057dd86f - test: "added file1 and file2" + +<<<<<<< working copy: c3fa057dd86f - test: "added file1 and file2" +changed file1 different +======= changed file1 - +>>>>>>> other: dfab7f3c2efb - test: "changed file1" + +>>>>>>> destination: dfab7f3c2efb - test: "changed file1" $ hg status M file1