Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

>> > > In that case, do you think [it was] premature to remove vc-directory which
>> > > was better at doing some of the things vc-dir should do?
>> > 
>> > AFAIK, it has the same "commit in foreground" and "no way to update the
>> > whole direcrory" problem.  VC-dir is missing some features, but which
>> > ones (other than the obvious ones from dired which probably won't be
>> > added to vc-dir anyway) were present in vc-dired?
>> 
>> vc-dir always needs the repository (even when vc-stay-local is t), 

> This would need to be implemented in specific backends (only CVS and svn
> care about it).  And it's rather easy: in vc-*-dir-status can use
> something like vc-rcs-dir-status.  Patches are welcome.
> (IMHO this is not very useful, but if people want it...)

I disagree.  The "stay-local" should be the default.  It is tremendously
useful (think of the case where you're not connected to your
repository).  The non-stay-local behavior is the one whose usefulness is
debatable (after all, most new VCS don't bother offering a clean
equivalent).


        Stefan