From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Uwe Brauer Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Removing rollback from VC mode - request for comment Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 16:42:37 +0100 Message-ID: <87y4qcj2mq.fsf@mat.ucm.es> References: <20141211092138.6D5F6C008E@snark.thyrsus.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1418399012 25024 80.91.229.3 (12 Dec 2014 15:43:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 15:43:32 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 12 16:43:25 2014 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 1XzSNB-0000Ox-Tu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 16:43:18 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57921 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XzSNB-00007s-BI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:43:17 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54348) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XzSMq-00007Q-EZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:43:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XzSMj-0006HG-Uy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:42:56 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:44356) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XzSMj-0006HB-My for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:42:49 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XzSMi-00088T-64 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 16:42:48 +0100 Original-Received: from gilgamesch.quim.ucm.es ([147.96.12.99]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 16:42:48 +0100 Original-Received: from oub by gilgamesch.quim.ucm.es with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 16:42:48 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 35 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: gilgamesch.quim.ucm.es Mail-Copies-To: never X-Hashcash: 1:20:141212:gmane.emacs.devel::gikNDeokisfvI6DA:000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002re7 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13001 (Ma Gnus v0.10) XEmacs/21.5-b33 (linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:t1lLUvV5NfniiTw/WBKsPWJZ05E= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 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:179926 Archived-At: >> "Eric" == Eric S Raymond writes: > I am trying to simplify and clean up the back-end API of VC mode. [snip] > Rollback is a case in point. It is a command that lets you undo the > last checkin. Only SCCS and RCS actually support it. Git possibly > could, in theory, but the Git implementation would be tricky and have > sharp edges when the last revision had been pushed. > Here are the arguments for doing this: > The argument against this is simply that someone, somewhere out there, > might be using it on some remnant RCS repo (I think we can safely > consider SCCS dead to us at this point). And the broader question is > whether that possibility is a dealbreaker. > Is it really important to support a VC-mode operation that experience > has shown to generally be a Bad Thing, simply to preserve backward > compatibility? How do we evaluate tradeoffs when a featurectomy > would reduce maintenance burden and possibly improve the quality > of support for new systems? > I don't think I have a pat answer to these questions. Discuss. >From a very practical point of view: I use RCS on most of my longer latex documents, as it happens (without going into details) sometimes, not very often but often enough, the coding is scrambled during a check-in making the LaTeX file completely useless. In that case I simply remove the last commit and I am back in business again. Removing this feature would be a deal breaker for me. Uwe Brauer