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: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 08:54:18 +0300 Message-ID: <56023E8A.4020209@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> <5601A504.4080807@yandex.ru> <83r3lql1gj.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 1442987687 7607 80.91.229.3 (23 Sep 2015 05:54:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 05:54:47 +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 Wed Sep 23 07:54:43 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 1Zed0s-0000Fr-Hu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 07:54:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45380 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zed0r-0000Az-RL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 01:54:41 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45328) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zed0e-0000Ah-E7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 01:54:29 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zed0Z-0006s4-Dw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 01:54:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wi0-x22a.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a]:32939) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zed0Z-0006rp-1M; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 01:54:23 -0400 Original-Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so222877509wic.0; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 22:54:22 -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=uA0X10v3tzS2kt+yTpA4zKw0eRi2UyBLA0zlmKHkdUE=; b=ztByM+7Rz5hz3nH4s/l026Lh+etdau54eze2NwEZPgRjpT9hfZKuq5tjZ5gL2AThZa bC0yNhvdwvbUMjj913S30c06Zm/FeGTXCEHMPEFQzMFoWQIfZcvbD7zVLqK8Z2qDBAhr z/a44gJWmyOR3h0ePl0VqN7e1L/5dbMth0Kz5mdNUkz0p3am+bzqbdNiq6Ujm0Q68ji5 15TMlAlMkbtn8N5uql4HVG2UNIBzzJ5JRkm74Naegh8W66jM7liFn3kpoXVbNNoMokab 4ER5/Y5mDLJ9LgSMLZrMiy/LLG0OTzT35lSvijwYaAjHqbqYX5JhXkXCOvo+R8Ln5Yse QEsw== X-Received: by 10.194.103.130 with SMTP id fw2mr37942158wjb.121.1442987662029; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 22:54:22 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [10.9.0.103] (nat.webazilla.com. [78.140.128.228]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id xw2sm5393071wjc.12.2015.09.22.22.54.20 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Sep 2015 22:54:21 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:41.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/41.0 In-Reply-To: <83r3lql1gj.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::22a 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:190262 Archived-At: On 09/22/2015 10:05 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> 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. > > I meant a single warning, not 2 of them. That sounds non-trivial: how is generic code to know that the Git backend intends to fall back to 'git revert'? Would warnings be backend-specific? And having just one warning means it has to convey both the sense of danger *and* the choice of Git command to be used. Thinking about the issue more, 'git reset' is not that dangerous. *Especially* if the changes have been pushed to the remote. So even if you 'git reset HEAD^', but the commit has been pushed already, you can undo the operation simply by doing 'git pull', among other ways. But 'git reset' without '--hard' sets you up to easily create conflicting commits, so it does invite confusion. So I think vc-rollback should error out (by default; that could be customizable) when the user tries to back out of an already-published commit (and the backend knows how to detect that), and suggest using vc-revert. Which will be a separate command. If those names seem too similar to someone, I welcome better suggestions.