From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: RCS, again: another removed functionality: undo last-checkin Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:08:05 +0300 Message-ID: <560152B5.7090005@yandex.ru> References: <87oagx6tzz.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <55FF4026.2050004@yandex.ru> <83si68nu4i.fsf@gnu.org> <56000DEB.1000306@yandex.ru> <83si67n4ch.fsf@gnu.org> <5600373A.6090206@yandex.ru> <83oagvn1lz.fsf@gnu.org> <56003D57.2080102@yandex.ru> <83mvwfmviy.fsf@gnu.org> <56005B96.2090006@yandex.ru> <83h9mnmtwj.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1442927312 7372 80.91.229.3 (22 Sep 2015 13:08:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 13:08:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 22 15:08:26 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeNJ3-0008WT-M8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:08:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39354 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeNIy-00061n-2A for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:08:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53974) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeNIq-00061F-82 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:08:17 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeNIn-0003rM-0d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:08:12 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wi0-x229.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]:37446) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeNIm-0003rG-Qr; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:08:08 -0400 Original-Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so22941027wic.0; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 06:08:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=e6QcsaZLaTSHeUw13t7PIWu2ajHIEz34Mafx6Vm0BOA=; b=l82SR9e2M8+CTzrgEGrJrcy3yNd7gtbzhBXxXb7JpLGVaQU7ujUGmb9W+CWgVZpfjq 9v6g6HJfu0RzwUZ1tcA7fkHewdHG/oEdOV9eJzfoOd/5XebixmlJGo0CgH+q3oltOfN+ ZCSmwm1zkXoToyCeZAw8ZzZOsjzImGmbnyRS/v9/C6pXuFVEEmoGNyw1swFvfcvoKr2F jUMtt/o2EDyF0BjYAJmR7RyGFnNyHwv77Q7B7pysPenPutsN+Vh06U4jTKxoYMMumopL OF4ptLHV/QaiqYJnUoQklQOBc9oyTxadgMrDTqXuLFp+fE+dWf8nebMeirDXXYF7DEX5 9T4Q== X-Received: by 10.180.182.7 with SMTP id ea7mr21051017wic.58.1442927287749; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 06:08:07 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [10.9.0.103] (nat.webazilla.com. [78.140.128.228]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id go2sm3073908wib.20.2015.09.22.06.08.06 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Sep 2015 06:08:07 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:41.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/41.0 In-Reply-To: <83h9mnmtwj.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c05::229 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:190245 Archived-At: On 09/21/2015 10:53 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Otherwise, 'git reset' and 'git revert' are roughly equivalent in this >> regard. It's just that 'git push' will fail upon being called after the >> former, in certain circumstances. > > The idea of the proposal, namely, call 'revert' when 'reset' followed > by 'push' would fail, was to avoid the failure. It could work as a fallback, yes, after we have the "unsafe" predicate implemented. The user would need to be warned in some very obvious way, though.