From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chong Yidong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#694: marked as done (23.0.60; wrong behaviour of Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:07:00 -0400 Message-ID: <87vdxlw7wb.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> References: <87ljyiyyud.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> Reply-To: Chong Yidong , 694@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1219933922 29506 80.91.229.12 (28 Aug 2008 14:32:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:32:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 694@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 28 16:32:53 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KYiUW-0008A5-8h for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:28:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54992 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KYiTX-0007qb-Ku for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:27:51 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KYiTI-0007cf-Ud for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:27:36 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KYiTG-0007Xj-Ld for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:27:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58219 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KYiTG-0007XM-BP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:27:34 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu ([138.23.92.77]:36895) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KYiTF-0005sq-Lc for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:27:34 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu (rzlab.ucr.edu [127.0.0.1]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id m7SERTKt013834; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 07:27:29 -0700 Original-Received: (from debbugs@localhost) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id m7SEA4v4007847; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 07:10:04 -0700 X-Loop: don@donarmstrong.com Resent-From: Chong Yidong Resent-To: bug-submit-list@donarmstrong.com Resent-CC: Emacs Bugs Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:10:04 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: don@donarmstrong.com X-Emacs-PR-Message: report 694 X-Emacs-PR-Package: emacs X-Emacs-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 694-submit@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com id=B694.12199323146821 (code B ref 694); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:10:04 +0000 Original-Received: (at 694) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 28 Aug 2008 14:05:14 +0000 Original-Received: from cyd.mit.edu (CYD.MIT.EDU [18.115.2.24]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id m7SE56aS006186 for <694@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 07:05:07 -0700 Original-Received: by cyd.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 87C9B57E186; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:07:00 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Wed\, 27 Aug 2008 21\:31\:41 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2.91 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:27:35 -0400 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:19799 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >> I believe vc-workfile-unchanged-p and if the two timestamsps are the >> same, it can conclude that the file is unchanged, but if the >> timestamps are different, it should call the backend specific >> workfile-unchanged-p function. > > For CVS if the user requested to `stay-local', this is not quite right > either since it will connect to the server. Admittedly, there's no way > to get the right answer without connecting to the server, but this > behavior has been with us for years and I usually consider it a feature > (most/all the CVS servers I use are usually remote/slow/unreachable, so > it's important to have control over when VC contacts the server and when > it doesn't). Should I revert the patch then?