Re: Gud lord!

["Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu>]

> > Don't get me wrong, I think arch is really cool.  But I think before
> > trying to get us to switch to arch, you should help us write vc-arch.el.
> > I've recently cooked up vc-mcvs.el and vc-svn.el in a pretty short
> > amount of time.  I haven't had the time to do it for vc-arch.el, but
> > it should be pretty easy if you follow the same pattern: take vc-cvs.el
> > (or vc-svn.el), do s/cvs/arch/ on the file to start with and then
> > fix things.  I'd be happy to help, of course.
> 
> I think you (I) might find that an interface designed for cvs is not
> going to work well with arch,

It works with Subversion which is not file oriented either.  And having
looked at the Arch doc a bit, I know that it won't take much work
to get vc-arch.el working.  All you need really is to tell Emacs
how to get the state of a file, how to diff/log/move/delete/update/commit
a file and a few other such things.
If you can't do one of those things on a single file, then burp at the user.

> because arch's interace is significantly
> different than CVS's.  arch is not a CVS work-alike with a couple
> extras.  It is fundamentally different. For example, it is not file
> oriented, it is "source tree" oriented.  etc.

Which is why I'd want a replacement for PCL-CVS rather than just vc-arch.el,
but vc-arch.el would be a first step.

> In any case, I think an emacs mode is a very minor point wrt the value
> of adoption.

Depends on your habits.  I do all my CVS operations from Emacs.
I can't think of working without a PCL-CVS-like view of my workspace.


	Stefan