Re: Introducing 'unrecognized and 'ignored

[Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu>]

Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:

  > >> I hook into vc-do-command... I'm not sure if that is really a good idea.
  > >> I guess that's why we have patch review :-)
  > 
  > Stefan> I general it doesn't sound like a bad idea, but I'll reserve
  > Stefan> my judgment until I see the code.
  > 
  > Here's the patch I've got.
  > 
  > Note there is a bug fix to vc-update-vc-status-buffer in here... this
  > should go in even if the rest of the patch does not.  You can see this
  > bug by running vc-status in a directory with no modifications and no
  > unrecognized files.
  > 
  > Stefan> PCL-CVS used to clear the ewoc, so I obviously believe it's
  > Stefan> worth the effort to not clear it, so as to preserve mark and
  > Stefan> such.
  > 
  > Yeah.  In general I think vc-status should follow PCL-CVS unless there
  > is a really good reason to be different.

IMHO displaying the command that is running is overkill.  I don't think
VC users would care about it, they just want to see that something is
happening. Generic messages like Updating/Committing/Reading Status
should be enough. (PCL-CVS does print the command, but I personally
never payed attention to what it prints there...).  
Coupled with something that displays the running status in the mode-line
(like it is now done for diff/log/annotate).

About the footer message: I am afraid that it would get the same
opposition as the text at the end of vc-diff recently got.