From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stefan Monnier" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: 4 minor suggestions for files.el Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:23:03 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <200304181423.h3IEN3Je013661@rum.cs.yale.edu> References: <200304142022.h3EKMHRu026814@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200304172139.h3HLdBvK009948@rum.cs.yale.edu> <1050672259.633.14.camel@localhost> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1050675821 4728 80.91.224.249 (18 Apr 2003 14:23:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:23:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 18 16:23:35 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 196Wm7-0001Dg-00 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:23:35 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 196WpS-0004R2-00 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:27:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 196Wm9-0005R8-02 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:23:37 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 196Wlf-0005Or-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:23:07 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 196Wld-0005O4-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:23:06 -0400 Original-Received: from rum.cs.yale.edu ([128.36.229.169]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 196Wlc-0005NI-00; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:23:04 -0400 Original-Received: from rum.cs.yale.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rum.cs.yale.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h3IEN3x6013663; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:23:03 -0400 Original-Received: (from monnier@localhost) by rum.cs.yale.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h3IEN3Je013661; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:23:03 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 Original-To: Andre Spiegel Original-cc: rms@gnu.org Original-cc: Stefan Monnier X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:13285 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:13285 > > I think I understand now--it treats the insert-file operation as an > > ordinary undoable buffer change. > > > > Spiegel, is that really the right thing to do in VC? > > VC does a revert-buffer after each version control operation, so that > changes in version headers are picked up. > > If I understand correctly, the revert-buffer would be undoable. > > This may be confusing because the actual version control operation would > not be undone. After undoing the revert-buffer, the version headers > would no longer correspond to the version control state of the file. > > If the feature is perceived generally useful, I think VC ought to clear > the undo list by itself in each version control operation. I strongly disagree. I went to the trouble of writing the patch and I almost exclusively use it with VC (though sometimes also with auto-revert-mode). Why would it hurt particularly to undo the version-headers-change ? Stefan