* Re: master f7b84345f8 1/2: ; * doc/emacs/vc1-xtra.texi (Editing VC Commands): Fix wording. [not found] ` <20220930185754.DF8FAC00615@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> @ 2022-09-30 23:46 ` Sean Whitton 2022-10-01 5:48 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Sean Whitton @ 2022-09-30 23:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-devel, Eli Zaretskii Hello Eli, Thank you for reviewing the commit. On Fri 30 Sep 2022 at 02:57PM -04, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > diff --git a/doc/emacs/vc1-xtra.texi b/doc/emacs/vc1-xtra.texi > index a8ceb1b790..05d2144380 100644 > --- a/doc/emacs/vc1-xtra.texi > +++ b/doc/emacs/vc1-xtra.texi > @@ -270,16 +270,17 @@ with the file's version control type. > @findex vc-edit-next-command > @kindex C-x v ! > You can use the @kbd{C-x v !} (@code{vc-edit-next-command}) prefix > -command to request an opportunity to edit the VC shell commands that > -Emacs will run. This is primarily intended to make it possible to > -access version control system-specific functionality without > -complexifying either the VC command set or the backend API. > +command to edit the shell command line that VC is about to run. This > +is primarily intended to make it possible to add optional command-line > +arguments to VCS commands without unnecessary complications of the VC > +command set and its interfaces with the backend. I would like to restore the idea that it's about accessing VC system-specific features, because adding optional command line arguments is merely the means by which they are accessed. How about: This is primarily intended to make it possible to access version control system-specific functionality, by means of adding optional command line arguments to VCS commands, without unwanted complications of the VC command set and its interfaces with the backend. -- Sean Whitton ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: master f7b84345f8 1/2: ; * doc/emacs/vc1-xtra.texi (Editing VC Commands): Fix wording. 2022-09-30 23:46 ` master f7b84345f8 1/2: ; * doc/emacs/vc1-xtra.texi (Editing VC Commands): Fix wording Sean Whitton @ 2022-10-01 5:48 ` Eli Zaretskii 2022-10-04 23:24 ` Sean Whitton 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2022-10-01 5:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sean Whitton; +Cc: emacs-devel > From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> > Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 16:46:51 -0700 > > Hello Eli, > > Thank you for reviewing the commit. You are welcome. > > --- a/doc/emacs/vc1-xtra.texi > > +++ b/doc/emacs/vc1-xtra.texi > > @@ -270,16 +270,17 @@ with the file's version control type. > > @findex vc-edit-next-command > > @kindex C-x v ! > > You can use the @kbd{C-x v !} (@code{vc-edit-next-command}) prefix > > -command to request an opportunity to edit the VC shell commands that > > -Emacs will run. This is primarily intended to make it possible to > > -access version control system-specific functionality without > > -complexifying either the VC command set or the backend API. > > +command to edit the shell command line that VC is about to run. This > > +is primarily intended to make it possible to add optional command-line > > +arguments to VCS commands without unnecessary complications of the VC > > +command set and its interfaces with the backend. > > I would like to restore the idea that it's about accessing VC > system-specific features, because adding optional command line arguments > is merely the means by which they are accessed. How about: > > This is primarily intended to make it possible to access version > control system-specific functionality, by means of adding optional > command line arguments to VCS commands, without unwanted > complications of the VC command set and its interfaces with the > backend. The original text ("access version control system-specific functionality") was too vague, and I attempted to make it more concrete and clear. I don't understand why that part is so important to have it, especially if you agree that the most frequent expression of "accessing version control system-specific functionality" is to add optional command-line arguments. Isn't it clear to any reader that adding command-line arguments will activate additional functionality? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: master f7b84345f8 1/2: ; * doc/emacs/vc1-xtra.texi (Editing VC Commands): Fix wording. 2022-10-01 5:48 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2022-10-04 23:24 ` Sean Whitton 2022-10-05 5:58 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Sean Whitton @ 2022-10-04 23:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-devel Hello, On Sat 01 Oct 2022 at 08:48AM +03, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > The original text ("access version control system-specific > functionality") was too vague, and I attempted to make it more > concrete and clear. I don't understand why that part is so important > to have it, especially if you agree that the most frequent expression > of "accessing version control system-specific functionality" is to add > optional command-line arguments. Isn't it clear to any reader that > adding command-line arguments will activate additional functionality? I think it is important to distinguish just adding arguments, and adding arguments that take one beyond VC's VCS-agnostic interface. For example, it would not make much sense to use 'C-x v ! C-x v L' to log another (singular) branch. You should use 'C-x v b l'. -- Sean Whitton ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: master f7b84345f8 1/2: ; * doc/emacs/vc1-xtra.texi (Editing VC Commands): Fix wording. 2022-10-04 23:24 ` Sean Whitton @ 2022-10-05 5:58 ` Eli Zaretskii 2022-10-05 23:06 ` Sean Whitton 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2022-10-05 5:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sean Whitton; +Cc: emacs-devel > From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 16:24:24 -0700 > > On Sat 01 Oct 2022 at 08:48AM +03, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > The original text ("access version control system-specific > > functionality") was too vague, and I attempted to make it more > > concrete and clear. I don't understand why that part is so important > > to have it, especially if you agree that the most frequent expression > > of "accessing version control system-specific functionality" is to add > > optional command-line arguments. Isn't it clear to any reader that > > adding command-line arguments will activate additional functionality? > > I think it is important to distinguish just adding arguments, and adding > arguments that take one beyond VC's VCS-agnostic interface. Why is it important? The user can do whatever they want with this functionality, and we shouldn't second-guess them. The manual describes what we think is a good use of that, but other than that, it's the user's call and prerogative. > For example, it would not make much sense to use 'C-x v ! C-x v L' > to log another (singular) branch. You should use 'C-x v b l'. "Would not make much sense" is in the eyes of the beholder. Not all of us are quick-thinking enough to realize the commands we sometimes choose to do a job are not the optimal ones. But there's no reason to pretend that there's only one way of doing every job. Are there other reasons to insist on the "VCS-specific functionality" aspect of this command, beyond the above considerations of using VC command in an optimal fashion? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: master f7b84345f8 1/2: ; * doc/emacs/vc1-xtra.texi (Editing VC Commands): Fix wording. 2022-10-05 5:58 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2022-10-05 23:06 ` Sean Whitton 2022-10-07 12:45 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Sean Whitton @ 2022-10-05 23:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-devel Hello, On Wed 05 Oct 2022 at 08:58AM +03, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > "Would not make much sense" is in the eyes of the beholder. Not all > of us are quick-thinking enough to realize the commands we sometimes > choose to do a job are not the optimal ones. But there's no reason to > pretend that there's only one way of doing every job. > > Are there other reasons to insist on the "VCS-specific functionality" > aspect of this command, beyond the above considerations of using VC > command in an optimal fashion? What I'd like to get across in the manual, somehow and somewhere, is that VC now has a broadly applicable answer to the question of accessing VCS-specific functionality. We've decided that in many cases, the best thing is to require that the user edit command lines themselves, rather than adding new VC commands or new VCS-specific commands. So if someone is wondering "how do I get at X with VC, do I just have to resort to a shell?" it would be good for them to know that 'C-x v !' might be a convenient option for them. I accept that here is perhaps not the best place to try to get this across. Where do you think something like that might fit? Would be grateful for help. -- Sean Whitton ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: master f7b84345f8 1/2: ; * doc/emacs/vc1-xtra.texi (Editing VC Commands): Fix wording. 2022-10-05 23:06 ` Sean Whitton @ 2022-10-07 12:45 ` Eli Zaretskii 2023-02-22 17:19 ` Sean Whitton 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2022-10-07 12:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sean Whitton; +Cc: emacs-devel > From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2022 16:06:21 -0700 > > On Wed 05 Oct 2022 at 08:58AM +03, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > "Would not make much sense" is in the eyes of the beholder. Not all > > of us are quick-thinking enough to realize the commands we sometimes > > choose to do a job are not the optimal ones. But there's no reason to > > pretend that there's only one way of doing every job. > > > > Are there other reasons to insist on the "VCS-specific functionality" > > aspect of this command, beyond the above considerations of using VC > > command in an optimal fashion? > > What I'd like to get across in the manual, somehow and somewhere, is > that VC now has a broadly applicable answer to the question of accessing > VCS-specific functionality. We've decided that in many cases, the best > thing is to require that the user edit command lines themselves, rather > than adding new VC commands or new VCS-specific commands. So if someone > is wondering "how do I get at X with VC, do I just have to resort to a > shell?" it would be good for them to know that 'C-x v !' might be a > convenient option for them. > > I accept that here is perhaps not the best place to try to get this > across. Where do you think something like that might fit? Would be > grateful for help. I very much doubt that you can usefully say something like that in a description of an obscure command: how will that be discovered? And where else in the manual would you say something like that, when it involves a specific command? So maybe say that in NEWS? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: master f7b84345f8 1/2: ; * doc/emacs/vc1-xtra.texi (Editing VC Commands): Fix wording. 2022-10-07 12:45 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2023-02-22 17:19 ` Sean Whitton 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Sean Whitton @ 2023-02-22 17:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: emacs-devel Hello, On Fri 07 Oct 2022 at 03:45PM +03, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2022 16:06:21 -0700 >> >> On Wed 05 Oct 2022 at 08:58AM +03, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> >> > "Would not make much sense" is in the eyes of the beholder. Not all >> > of us are quick-thinking enough to realize the commands we sometimes >> > choose to do a job are not the optimal ones. But there's no reason to >> > pretend that there's only one way of doing every job. >> > >> > Are there other reasons to insist on the "VCS-specific functionality" >> > aspect of this command, beyond the above considerations of using VC >> > command in an optimal fashion? >> >> What I'd like to get across in the manual, somehow and somewhere, is >> that VC now has a broadly applicable answer to the question of accessing >> VCS-specific functionality. We've decided that in many cases, the best >> thing is to require that the user edit command lines themselves, rather >> than adding new VC commands or new VCS-specific commands. So if someone >> is wondering "how do I get at X with VC, do I just have to resort to a >> shell?" it would be good for them to know that 'C-x v !' might be a >> convenient option for them. >> >> I accept that here is perhaps not the best place to try to get this >> across. Where do you think something like that might fit? Would be >> grateful for help. > > I very much doubt that you can usefully say something like that in a > description of an obscure command: how will that be discovered? Yes, good point. > And where else in the manual would you say something like that, when > it involves a specific command? Not sure. > So maybe say that in NEWS? Okay, thanks for the suggestion, now done. -- Sean Whitton ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-02-22 17:19 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <166456427452.19714.6372202545661875453@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> [not found] ` <20220930185754.DF8FAC00615@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> 2022-09-30 23:46 ` master f7b84345f8 1/2: ; * doc/emacs/vc1-xtra.texi (Editing VC Commands): Fix wording Sean Whitton 2022-10-01 5:48 ` Eli Zaretskii 2022-10-04 23:24 ` Sean Whitton 2022-10-05 5:58 ` Eli Zaretskii 2022-10-05 23:06 ` Sean Whitton 2022-10-07 12:45 ` Eli Zaretskii 2023-02-22 17:19 ` Sean Whitton
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).