Re: [Quilt-dev] [PATCH] Enhanced decoration for "series -v" command

[Peter Williams]

Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> [Peter Williams]
>
> > The attached patch modifies quilt's "series -v" command to add this
> > information to the output.  With this patch the following prefices are
> > applied to each patch displayed:
>
>
> I won't comment on the feature itself, as I am the one who asked for it
> in the first place ;)
>
>
> > "+ "  -- if the patch is applied, is not the top patch and does not
> >         need a refresh
> > "? "  -- if the patch is applied and is not the top patch but needs
> >         a refresh
> > "= "  -- if the patch is applied, is the top patch and does not need
> >         a refresh
> > "! "  -- if the patch is applied and is the top patch but needs a
> >         refresh
> >
> > Your comments are requested.
>
>
> There are two things I'd like to be discussed, not exatcly about this
> patch but somewhat related to it.
>
> First, why was the top patch treated any differently in the first place?

I asked myself the same question.

> I don't think it adds any value. The top patch is always the last
> applied one in the series (in other words, the last one prefixed with a
> "+" is we weren't treating it differently). One advantage of not
> treating it differently is that after Peter's patch, we would have only
> two possible symbols rather than four, which would make the output
> easier to read IMHO (and may allow for code cleanups as well).

I agree.

> As I also don't much like "?" and "!", I would suggest a different,
> more explicit symbol: "R" (for "needs Refresh"), regardless of
> whether the patch is on top, or not. It could also be discussed whether
> we want "R" to replace "+" for these patches which need a refresh,
> or rather be placed in a new column. I guess this depends on what we
> think could be added at a later time to the output of "quilt series".

All questions that I asked myself and then made arbitrary decisions 
knowing that they could be changed later after everyone had had a say. 
So I won't oppose any proposals to change the decorations that I've used.

> Second, I noticed that "quilt patches" has an output similar to that of
> "quilt series". Wouldn't be better to refactor the printing logic and
> move it to patchfns? This would ensure that both outputs always use the
> same convention (which would be great IMHO), and may also save some code.

It would be nice if this output were the same as that from "quilt 
series" as it would simplify adding this feature (currently not high on 
my list) to gquilt.

Peter
--
Peter Williams                                   address@hidden

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
 -- Ambrose Bierce