Looking at my latest list of available bash completions, I was surprised to find both "hg" and "mercurial". qfile told me that the mercurial module comes from dev-util/mercurial-1.1.2 while app-shells/bash-completion-20081219 shipped the hg module. In analogy to the way subversion is handled, you might wish to rename the hg module to _mercurial.
Upstream completely dropped the hg module because upstream's was better. In your opinion, should I do the same? Please test them out and let me know. thx
Sorry, upstream b-c dropped the module because upstream mercurial's was better.
I'm not a regular mercurial user, but looking at both, I'd suggest doing the same, for a number of reasons: 1. Right now, mercurial seems better than hg because 1.1. it deals with more options, e.g. --cwd 1.2. it provides more features, e.g. _hg_emails customization 1.3. it uses hg debugcomplete instead of hackish awked help output 2. It is more likely to stay in sync with mercurials capabilities 3. If upstream b-c dropped it, doing the same eases maintainance 4. Having only one module avoids confusion (true for subversion as well) Main argument in favor of the hg module would be code size and thus memory footprint and stuff like that. But as people worried about such things usually wouldn't have bash-completion enabled at all, I think that's a weak argument. One thing I'm a bit worried about is that mercurial sets the extglob shell option, but there are a number of other packages doing the same. I just filed bug 259835 about this whole extglob business, especially wrt. monotone.
I agree. 20081219-r1 rm's contrib/hg. b-c upstream commit says: commit cdec0e5a58ed3388034c5ac74a03ff754de11338 Author: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi> Date: Sun Feb 15 22:50:41 2009 +0200 Drop hg completion, an improved version is shipped with Mercurial (contrib/bash_completion in the tarball).
