Re: Emacs-devel Digest, Vol 44, Issue 41

Re: Emacs-devel Digest, Vol 44, Issue 41

[Eric S. Raymond]

Stefan writes:
> In the latest vc.el I've seen you've used "current focus version", but I see
> no need for "focus" here (and I prefer "revision" to "version" here as
> well), so why not "current revision"?  It's a terminology that I've often
> seen used.

So have I, but I don't think it's specific enough.  Current with
respect to what?  It's too easy to look at "current revision" and
think it must refer to the head or tip version -- that is, what's
*chronologically* current as opposed to the version selected for
operation by the VCS, which might be anywhere in the history 
depending on how your did your last sync or tagging operation.

I actually share your preference for "revision" over "version", BTW.
But one thing at a time; let's get the logic merge done and save
things like performance tuning and bikeshedding about the terminology
for later.

> If you can slice your changes into several smaller patches, then that would
> be great, indeed.

I've committed a couple of patches that reduce the diff substantially 
without changing the existing logic.  I can do a bit more along that line,
but there is going to be at least one commit that will be *large*.

Dan Nicolaescu continues to be the hero of this effort; his review of
my latest version was, again, extremely helpful.  It gives me hope
that we can wrap up the logic merge within the next week or so.  

That would be good, as there is cleanup work -- like performance-tuning
VC-Dired -- that I want to get to, but is going to be too much of a
pain in the ass as long as the versions are still forked.  
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

Re: Emacs-devel Digest, Vol 44, Issue 41

[Stefan Monnier]

> So have I, but I don't think it's specific enough.  Current with
> respect to what?  It's too easy to look at "current revision" and
> think it must refer to the head or tip version

No, the head revision is called "head".

> I actually share your preference for "revision" over "version", BTW.
> But one thing at a time; let's get the logic merge done and save
> things like performance tuning and bikeshedding about the terminology
> for later.

Sure, but the current vc.el uses the two inconsistently  anyway, so we get
to change it little by little without making things worse.  I.e. whenever we
introduce new terminology, we can use the "right" one without regards to
what vc.el has used until now.


        Stefan