From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dan Nicolaescu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: support for git commit --amend/--signoff Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:14:57 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87hblavx6f.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <874oh94kdh.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1277421308 32338 80.91.229.12 (24 Jun 2010 23:15:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:15:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Juri Linkov , =?utf-8?B?xaB0xJtww6FuIE7Em21lYw==?= , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 25 01:15:07 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ORvdQ-0007cI-Qe for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 01:15:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45235 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ORvdP-0000yh-NW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:15:03 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54096 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ORvdL-0000xt-KU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:14:59 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1ORvdK-0007ux-9d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:14:59 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:49847) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1ORvdK-0007ut-3b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:14:58 -0400 Original-Received: from dann by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ORvdJ-000847-Nw; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:14:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Fri\, 25 Jun 2010 00\:25\:09 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:126379 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >> Can you please show how this is better than adding a single argument >> to the vc-checkin method? (For which the code already exists). > > It makes more of the state plainly visible to the user, editable with > Emacs's usual commands, rather than hidden in variables that are much > more difficult for the user to control. How is it more difficult to control something that has an explicit command attached to it? (that you've stated that we need to have anyway) > I.e. it's more Emacsy by keeping things shallow. That's not quite true for a lot of things we do in Emacs. >>>>> Why not show it inside the buffer (e.g. in the header ;-) instead? >>>> Because we want to insert the previous log when using --amend, so it's >>>> better to use a command instead of a header. >>> The question is not "a command vs a header" but "a variable vs >>> a header". In both cases we will want to provide a command (which will >>> fetch the previous log, etc...). >> So what happens if one deletes the Ammend: header? Accidentally or not? > > It means the commit doesn't amend. Same thing if you set your vars > accidentally or if you call the toggle command accidentally, ... > > I really don't see it as a problem. Even if it's done accidentally, > it's obvious for the user what the behavior will be, since it's written > in plain text. Why deal with any potential complications that are not needed at all? >> --amend and --signoff simply do not fit the header paradigm. >> Can we please admit that and move on? > > I really don't see it. Are willing to implement your version and ask users if they prefer it? I've implemented my version and have been using it for > 6 months, it's much better to not have to deal with headers.