From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stefan Monnier" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Results of C-x C-q poll Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 18:04:39 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <200207062204.g66M4es09015@rum.cs.yale.edu> References: <1025459292.4840.7.camel@eagle> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1026128977 29950 127.0.0.1 (8 Jul 2002 11:49:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 11:49:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17RX1M-0007mx-00 for ; Mon, 08 Jul 2002 13:49:36 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17RX9I-0002ud-00 for ; Mon, 08 Jul 2002 13:57:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17RX1p-00057q-00; Mon, 08 Jul 2002 07:50:05 -0400 Original-Received: from delysid.gnu.org ([158.121.106.20]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17RWzZ-0003nj-00 for ; Mon, 08 Jul 2002 07:47:45 -0400 Original-Received: from rum.cs.yale.edu ([128.36.229.169]) by delysid.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #2) id 17Qxfj-0001yn-00; Sat, 06 Jul 2002 18:04:55 -0400 Original-Received: (from monnier@localhost) by rum.cs.yale.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g66M4es09015; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 18:04:40 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 Original-To: Andre Spiegel Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:5558 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:5558 > Here are the results of the poll on C-x C-q. For your reference, > this was the text of the poll: Interesting reading. I think that if we're going to change C-x C-q so as not to be completely linked to VC, we should keep some link between the two. Some people suggested to print a message when invoking C-x C-q in a VC-controlled file. I think it's a good idea. In my case, I think I'd be even more happy if I could make C-x C-q do the checkout if: - the buffer was read-only (i.e. we're making the buffer readable) - the file was in the `up-to-date' state I don't actually need the C-x C-q to do the checkin (aka commit). But then again, maybe just popping a message is enough, and I'll just have to get used to hitting `C-x v v' (instead of C-x C-q) in order to make my VC-controlled buffers writable. Stefan