From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Benjamin Rutt Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [patch] add interactive browse of revisions from vc *Annotate* buffers Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:35:53 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <1073937837.2822.180.camel@localhost> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1073941781 11027 80.91.224.253 (12 Jan 2004 21:09:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 21:09:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 12 22:09:36 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ag9JY-0001lO-00 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:09:36 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ag9JY-0003XA-00 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:09:36 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AgADo-0006b3-HX for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:07:44 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AgADf-0006ZW-B0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:07:35 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1Ag9si-0008HQ-Mu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:46:29 -0500 Original-Received: from [164.107.123.5] (helo=cis.ohio-state.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Ag9ka-0005xt-AM; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:37:32 -0500 Original-Received: from mu.cis.ohio-state.edu (daemon@mu.cis.ohio-state.edu [164.107.112.41]) by cis.ohio-state.edu (8.11.6p2-20030924/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0CKZrP21498; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:35:53 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (from rutt@localhost) by mu.cis.ohio-state.edu (8.11.6p2-20030924/8.11.6) id i0CKZrE07832; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:35:53 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: mu.cis.ohio-state.edu: rutt set sender to rutt.4@osu.edu using -f Original-To: Andre Spiegel Mail-Followup-To: Andre Spiegel , emacs-devel@gnu.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (usg-unix-v) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:19151 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:19151 Andre Spiegel writes: > I like the features you (Benjamin) are suggesting but the keybindings > seem a bit problematic to me. Since those features would be very > important in VC Annotate, I wonder if you couldn't use simpler > bindings. Ideally, I'd put the annotate buffer in view mode and use "p" > and "n" for previous and next, but these are already bound to > View-search-last-regexp-backward/forward. Do people think it's > justified to replace that binding in vc-annotate-mode? I would think > the relative importance justifies it. To annotate from the revision > _before_ the one on the current line (which I feel is the most important > of those new features), "f" could be used (similar to Dired), without > any clash in view mode. I'm not a view-mode user, so I can't give my opinion on how I'd feel about those bindings being clobbered, but I do agree that simpler key bindings will be better. Also, if we don't do something like derive annotate-mode from view-mode, we should at least make the annotate buffer read-only once it is built. I like the idea of moving the "annotate the revision _before_ the one on the current line" command away from being just invokable via a prefix modifier of another command, to being a first-class citizen in itself, invokable directly. I don't care what actual keys are used myself, I'll let some others give their opinions on that. I wouldn't have a problem with using "p", "n" and "f" as you've described above. -- Benjamin