From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: RCS, again: another removed functionality: undo last-checkin Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 21:59:16 +0300 Message-ID: <5601A504.4080807@yandex.ru> References: <87oagx6tzz.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <55FF4026.2050004@yandex.ru> <83si68nu4i.fsf@gnu.org> <56000DEB.1000306@yandex.ru> <83si67n4ch.fsf@gnu.org> <5600373A.6090206@yandex.ru> <83oagvn1lz.fsf@gnu.org> <56003D57.2080102@yandex.ru> <83mvwfmviy.fsf@gnu.org> <56005B96.2090006@yandex.ru> <83h9mnmtwj.fsf@gnu.org> <560152B5.7090005@yandex.ru> <8337y6mut5.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1442948381 20563 80.91.229.3 (22 Sep 2015 18:59:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 18:59:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 22 20:59:36 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeSmt-0001Bo-FK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 20:59:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42168 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeSms-0003y1-RN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:59:34 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39823) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeSmh-0003xu-QB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:59:24 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeSme-00017m-LC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:59:23 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]:35146) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeSme-00017X-FJ; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:59:20 -0400 Original-Received: by wicge5 with SMTP id ge5so175445246wic.0; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:59:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=94La3zH9wpjCfh2yAIDqzh4PLjnSPNw4efs+GyJjXCI=; b=IBJdJgAlsUgtIXPz8bp+JRBxjKCZ4oC4teZZsMTP+3v1qZRsbSBnCu1qc0vJ6IGP4u 2OdL81ScKbeixbRF2maBcZ1VW23BJQ+naWmPJsbnA/Ry02g8rYrQUVPgXGWg2DkaJgY8 N7FCXIbnHYgphY8N/vQUqP3sPyrxnytyqJ3D5jBRbk1C3GciqVNHbUSCzrf8Nc1V0vA/ hW9QQI7RW9jJZGgXdg5Fh46i1Nx9F98+iPnkitMVG0EFWs9+M3z3sEwibw7Wg1hDq9vo xQYvKHPRQOX50BIJtrTlNOaLHpBS/Piul7PB3j0Kwsei0CxLmSLYNb2dCb/2wgqPCEBx /LRA== X-Received: by 10.180.188.169 with SMTP id gb9mr20139845wic.44.1442948359553; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:59:19 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [10.9.0.103] (nat.webazilla.com. [78.140.128.228]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id hr17sm4572647wib.16.2015.09.22.11.59.17 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:59:18 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:41.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/41.0 In-Reply-To: <8337y6mut5.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:190250 Archived-At: On 09/22/2015 04:45 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > I agree. I think "rollback" should always trigger a warning, with any > VCS. Not sure what you mean. `vc-rollback' would be a command invoked explicitly by the user. Maybe it would show a warning too, but the fact that 'git revert' is going to be used instead of 'git reset', deserves a separate warning. And if we're going to warn about doing rollback either way, the second warning is more likely to fly under the user's radar ("why are you asking me this again? yes already!"), which is kinda bad.