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, 30 Sep 2015 14:27:56 +0300 Message-ID: <560BC73C.4040403@yandex.ru> References: <87oagx6tzz.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <55FF4026.2050004@yandex.ru> <83si68nu4i.fsf@gnu.org> <87eghsfd3m.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83k2rknr2c.fsf@gnu.org> <87mvwellmg.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <56023A6C.3020302@yandex.ru> <5602BE3E.1050009@yandex.ru> <5602C4DE.8020105@yandex.ru> <560B4899.2070708@yandex.ru> <83y4fobegc.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 1443681501 4912 80.91.229.3 (1 Oct 2015 06:38:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 06:38:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: stephen@xemacs.org, dak@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, rms@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 01 08:38:20 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 1ZhXVT-0007Nd-M8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 08:38:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38683 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhXVS-00054a-UB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 02:38:18 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55899) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhFYX-0000N2-2Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:28:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhFYT-0006bD-0S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:28:16 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]:36681) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhFYS-0006b3-PQ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:28:12 -0400 Original-Received: by wicgb1 with SMTP id gb1so190440599wic.1; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 04:28:12 -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=xWX36h/yjfCEz0XajGM9eWyNNxBkVxqCIONcVtqSjYs=; b=riQ/ZFwFMuDBGXm7AHZvDmGuFAiyMNZU9herFcc4qk3HgChAH1vRY4ujfHLrnZ8Xkd hiwszqMG9sZV6OBh5k30A01Bs8aMQrakGfq7y2yHk3lp4goBmbj4I+wKa/HIZtsezpSN xAX1eCgVpJvfvFbtNmWnJjr3XJbbE3qjT2JdPanhHFgzZsMKhZoLTnxNaHrqV9XPsBON BEbJI4+9c4D2Xy5qhFIu8063GEmBc4ya+ifEOYgx6IOYXXpAwE6gJ2MZszj6jE9oZRTM oKIJ+nqWwhjOxjJsZ5Eelvdn2P/nbnfm/V9gL8fmhM1NETXrAAZkoSvlgUkT+iZ4oDsq aSGA== X-Received: by 10.194.178.196 with SMTP id da4mr4248405wjc.41.1443612492290; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 04:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [10.9.0.103] (nat.webazilla.com. [78.140.128.228]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id h8sm197268wib.21.2015.09.30.04.28.10 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 04:28:11 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:41.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/41.0 In-Reply-To: <83y4fobegc.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:190515 Archived-At: On 09/30/2015 09:37 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > I guess it tries to follow the same workflow that existed initially > for file-based VCSes: if the file you act on is not registered, the > most (perhaps the only) reasonable thing to do is register it. Registering it is not my end goal. Committing it is. > Why are you saying it's weird for modern VCSes? I envision a > situation where I create several new files and want to add them to > version control. What situation did you have in mind where what > vc-next-action currently does makes little or no sense? It's just inefficient: I often have a set of new as well as modified files that implement a new feature. Before I can commit them, I have to hunt the unregistered files in vc-dir (or at least one of them, to press M then) and make them registered. If I already marked some registered files (because I forgot about the unregistered one), I have to unmark them and start from the beginning. Unless some backends absolutely can't commit unregistered files, we can skip that step. And even then, registering them could be a part of a backend's checkin implementation. >> "For a centralized version control system, if any work file in the VC >> fileset is out of date, offer to update the fileset." > > Are you saying this makes no sense for CVS or SVN? A dVCS is not > affected, so why drop this? In the vc-commit's command implementation, of course. It would make no sense there. > In general, IMO dropping such features has 2 disadvantages: it causes > bug reports when users who are used to using them upgrade and find > they lost them; and spawns endless discussions here that lead nowhere, > because there are 2 different crowds involved whose opinions cannot be > easily reconciled. If a maintainer could make a decision like that without others second-guessing them, we could stop discussions like the ones you mentioned with "just do XX now". Be it using a new VC command, or the command-line. > The only advantage is that it makes the code > simpler, but IMO this is an ephemeral advantage: the code is not that > complicated, It's complicated enough that it's not easy to implement the generic "amend" functionality on top of vc-next-action. > In all the years I'm involved with Emacs development, I think the last > round of changes in VC (I mean the one 9 months or so ago) was the > first time I saw features dropped not because they are unused or > incorrectly implemented, but because those who advocated dropping them > have no use for the back-ends those features support, and some simply > dislike those back-ends. That's a misrepresentation of the arguments given in favor of that vc-checkin change. At the end of the day, we should be able to drop features that don't make sense for VC. The user can access them via the command-line. As long as those aren't used too often, that's not a big loss.