Re: log format for vc-bzr

["Óscar Fuentes" <ofv@wanadoo.es>]

Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu> writes:

> The default C-x v l format for bzr does not show merges.
>
> The default C-x v g format shows the version number from the merge:
> Here's an example from bzr itself:
>
>
>                   | from cStringIO import StringIO
> 0.16.5    aaron@a | import shutil
> 0.16.1    aaron@a | import sys
> 0.16.5    aaron@a | import tempfile
> 0.16.1    aaron@a | 
> 0.16.25   aaron@a | from bzrlib import (
>                   |     builtins,
>                   |     delta,
>                   |     diff,
>                   |     errors,
> 0.16.79   aaron@a |     osutils,
> 0.16.25   aaron@a |     patches,
> 0.16.74   aaron@a |     shelf,
> 0.16.72   aaron@a |     textfile,
> 0.16.54   aaron@a |     trace,
> 0.16.64   aaron@a |     ui,
> 0.16.102  aaron@a |     workingtree,
>
> The result is that when using the "l" key binding in vc-annotate emacs
> is not able to find the log for the revision mentioned in the annotate
> buffer. 
>
> This can be solved by passing the "--include-merges" to "bzr log".
> Any reason not to do that?

With the distributed development style that encourages committing often,
the history that comes from the merged branch can be very boring and
irrelevant. Something like this:

15.23 gone lunch
15.24 some refactoring
15.25 seems ready for testing

The important info is in the merge commit:

15 Added feature Foo

and that is what the log should show by default.

OTOH, for long-lived merged branches that implements complex features,
the merged history conveys useful information.

So, in the best Emacs tradition, both modes should be supported :-)

Personally, I'm against showing the merged history by default. If you
need to pass --include-merges for showing a merged commit, that's okay,
but not when the user asks for the log with C-x v l.

It would be interesting to have a method on the log buffer for showing
the merged history at some merge point. Some kind of "expand this one
level".

-- 
Óscar