From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: RCS, again: another removed functionality: undo last-checkin Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:46:22 +0300 Message-ID: <83wpv8be0x.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87oagx6tzz.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <55FF4026.2050004@yandex.ru> <83si68nu4i.fsf@gnu.org> <87eghsfd3m.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83k2rknr2c.fsf@gnu.org> <87mvwellmg.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <56023A6C.3020302@yandex.ru> <5602BE3E.1050009@yandex.ru> <5602C4DE.8020105@yandex.ru> <560B4899.2070708@yandex.ru> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1443675125 10471 80.91.229.3 (1 Oct 2015 04:52:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 04:52:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: stephen@xemacs.org, dak@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, dgutov@yandex.ru To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 01 06:51:56 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 1ZhVqU-0008Jg-EW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 06:51:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37701 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhVqT-0006aK-HX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 00:51:53 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42701) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhBAL-0006oj-4c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:47:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhBAK-00023X-33 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:47:01 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:37916) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhBAG-00022x-6K; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:46:56 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NVH00D009FHB500@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:46:08 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.94.185.246]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NVH00DLZ9GV4M40@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:46:08 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.166 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:190492 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: rms@gnu.org, "Stephen J. Turnbull" , eliz@gnu.org, dak@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:53:51 -0400 > > > It also performs that weird step: "If every file in the VC fileset is not > > registered for version control, register the fileset (but don't commit)", > > aborting if some of the files in the fileset are unregistered and others > > are registered. > > Right. From a modern VCS's point of view, I think vc-next-action just > doesn't make any sense, and trying to be more clever at guessing what > the user intended won't get us very far. > > That's why I think we'd be better off providing vc-commit. AFAIK, all > other operations provided by vc-next-action can be reached via other > commands, so the only new command that's really needed is vc-commit. > > Then we can just keep vc-next-action for those old VCSes or for those > rare users who like it. That'd be fine with me, at least. But I still wonder why it won't be better to keep vc-next-action for supporting a simple CVS-like workflow with dVCSes as well. In such a workflow, the only additional step is "push". We can even ignore "push", leaving it to the user, in which case the order of operations in such a simple workflow is exactly the same as with RCS or CVS. Why not let people migrate gently, instead of abruptly removing all the basics they've learned? > > The section dedicated to "For old-style locking-based version control > > systems" in vc-next-action's docstring is more convoluted. As long as we're > > dedicated to supporting them, I'm not sure what change would be appropriate. > > The change I'm hinting at is to declare vc-next-action obsolete That's too radical, I think. Keeping vc-next-action only for the older VCSes doesn't mean it's obsolete in any way, because "obsolete" means "subject to removal soon", which is not the case here. > But even if we want to keep it, I think it's important, from a > design point of view, to make sure that it's never *necessary* to > use vc-next-action. I think we are already there: vc-next-action invokes commands that are all available separately, no?