From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: RCS: (vc-next-action 1) only New Backend Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:00:45 +0200 Message-ID: <871tdulodu.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87mvwjohyi.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <838u83r6hl.fsf@gnu.org> <87k2rn5ucg.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <837fnmrizs.fsf@gnu.org> <877fnm4wzn.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <876136lr83.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83y4g2pxh3.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1442656879 22762 80.91.229.3 (19 Sep 2015 10:01:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 10:01:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: oub@mat.ucm.es, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 19 12:01:14 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 1ZdExG-0008Q8-4p for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:01:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44756 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZdExF-00045n-Ee for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 06:01:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60321) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZdEwq-0003ev-Ex for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 06:00:49 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZdEwp-0001ji-EY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 06:00:48 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:56002) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZdEwp-0001jc-9O; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 06:00:47 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40803 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ZdEwo-00070l-GV; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 06:00:46 -0400 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EB82BDF363; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:00:45 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <83y4g2pxh3.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:30:48 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.10 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:190089 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: David Kastrup >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 10:59:24 +0200 >> >> I seem to remember that some RCS-only features were debated and possibly >> dropped at that time because ESR (along with a lot of others) were not >> terribly sympathetic towards complicating the generic framework because >> of the possibility of its continued use (mostly expected to be due to >> nostalgia). > > I guess you are referring to this discussion: > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-12/msg01164.html > > It talks about "rollback", whereas it seems that what was removed > includes a possibility to tell RCS how to number the version it is > about to commit. Entirely possible that this is what I remembered. However, the responsible commit turns out to be a good match to my vague recollection regarding content, commit message, date and author: commit 2f4f92007956983e6f5cb5136a57ddaa0cd9428e Author: Eric S. Raymond Date: Mon Dec 1 06:23:10 2014 -0500 VC API simplification: remove ability to set initial revision. This hasn't made any sense since RCS, and was a dumb stunt then. * vc/vc.el and all backends: API simplification; init-revision is gone, and vc-registered functions no longer take an initial-revision argument. and so my comments regarding the likely reaction to a wish for resurrection of that feature are probably not wide off the mark. -- David Kastrup