Two question about VC.

Two question about VC.

[Luc Teirlinck]

I plan to make some updates to files.el, which I submitted earlier.
But I have the following questions about VC.  I guess _somebody_ must
know the answer:

1.  `(emacs)Branches' contains:

  Please note, however, that branches are only supported for RCS at
  the moment.

I do not use branches myself, but is this really still up to date?

Would the following replacement text be correct:

  Please note, however, that branches are not supported for SCCS.

If I do not get an answer on this one, I will leave the old text in,
because I do not feel sure enough to make any changes.

2. (emacs)Local Version Control contains:

     But if you do this, the revision numbers in the RCS master no longer
  correspond to those of CVS.  Technically, this is not a problem, but it
  can become difficult to keep track of what is in the CVS repository and
  what is not.  So we suggest that you return from time to time to
  CVS-only operation, using `C-u C-x v v cvs <RET>'.

`C-u C-x v v cvs <RET>'?  Is that not going to try to commit to the
repository?   Is `C-x v b' meant?

Sincerely,

Luc.

Re: Two question about VC.

[Andre Spiegel]

On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 20:47 -0600, Luc Teirlinck wrote:

> 1.  `(emacs)Branches' contains:
> 
>   Please note, however, that branches are only supported for RCS at
>   the moment.
> 
> I do not use branches myself, but is this really still up to date?
> 
> Would the following replacement text be correct:
> 
>   Please note, however, that branches are not supported for SCCS.

I am not sure about MCVS, SVN, and Arch, but if we support branches for
all of them (which I tend to assume), then the replacement is correct.

> 2. (emacs)Local Version Control contains:
> 
>      But if you do this, the revision numbers in the RCS master no longer
>   correspond to those of CVS.  Technically, this is not a problem, but it
>   can become difficult to keep track of what is in the CVS repository and
>   what is not.  So we suggest that you return from time to time to
>   CVS-only operation, using `C-u C-x v v cvs <RET>'.
> 
> `C-u C-x v v cvs <RET>'?  Is that not going to try to commit to the
> repository?   Is `C-x v b' meant?

No, C-u C-x v v cvs <RET> is indeed the intention, because committing
back to CVS is the only way to get the revision numbers consistent with
CVS again.  Otherwise, you would stay on a local RCS branch that was
forked off some CVS revision in the past.  That final sentence could be
clarified as:

  So we suggest that you return from time to time to CVS-only operation,
committing your local changes back to the repository using 'C-u C-x v v
cvs RET'.

Re: Two question about VC.

[Luc Teirlinck]

Andre Spiegel wrote:

   >   Please note, however, that branches are not supported for SCCS.

   I am not sure about MCVS, SVN, and Arch, but if we support branches for
   all of them (which I tend to assume), then the replacement is correct.

In the text I am going to install occurs earlier:

+ In the following, we discuss mainly RCS, SCCS and CVS.  Nearly
+ everything said about CVS applies to Gnu Arch, Subversion and Meta-CVS
+ as well.

"Nearly" allows for the possibility of some exceptions, so complete
(well, let us hope) accuracy is only claimed for RCS, SCCS and CVS.
Short of somebody familiar with all of MCVS, SVN, and Arch carefully
going through the entire Emacs manual section on VC, I guess that we
can not do better than that.  The sentence:

   >   Please note, however, that branches are not supported for SCCS.

seems reasonably safe within that context.  Several other claims in
the Emacs section on VC only seem safe with the same qualifications.

   That final sentence could be clarified as:

     So we suggest that you return from time to time to CVS-only operation,
   committing your local changes back to the repository using 'C-u C-x v v
   cvs RET'.

Thanks, that is what I am going to use.

Sincerely,

Luc.