Re: moving SCCS later in vc-handled-backends

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

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:

  > Dan Nicolaescu writes:
  > 
  >  > Can you please give some more details here?
  > 
  > I just read the docs, which claim there is a good reason for file-
  > oriented VCSes to come first.  If the docs are wrong, they should be
  > fixed.
  > 
  > As far as I know this has always been rare.  The whole idea is quite
  > possibly obsolete according to what you say about the actual behavior
  > of vc, but if anybody still cares the change you're suggesting will be
  > a subtle change in behavior that will be intermittent and possibly
  > hard to diagnose.  I've found that it's almost always better to change
  > DWIM to "do nothing" as opposed to "do what somebody else means".

Why intermittent?  It's quite deterministic, and it matters if and only
if the same file is registered by SCCS and another backend.

SCCS by itself is rare, using both SCCS and another VCS on the same file
gotta be even less frequent.

  >  > An example would be even better.
  >  > vc does not decide a file is controlled by some VCS just based on the
  >  > presence of a directory, it actually tries to see if that file is
  >  > controlled by that VCS.
  >  > The ordering matters when the same file is controlled by multiple VCS,
  >  > vc will choose the first one in vc-handled-backends.
  > 
  > AFAIK it will also do this if it's controlled by no backend, too.

True, but in that case the order of search is irrelevant the same result
if obtained all the time: no backend claims to be responsible.