From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: RCS, again: another removed functionality: undo last-checkin Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 09:58:40 +0300 Message-ID: <83d1x9lizj.fsf@gnu.org> 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> <56023E8A.4020209@yandex.ru> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1442991526 13425 80.91.229.3 (23 Sep 2015 06:58:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 06:58:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 23 08:58:37 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 1Zee0j-0000B2-F7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 08:58:37 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45786 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zee0i-00054G-QA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 02:58:36 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53201) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zee0f-00053m-DB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 02:58:34 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zee0b-0003po-DA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 02:58:33 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:38950) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zee0b-0003nZ-0G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 02:58:29 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NV400I00B6ZYB00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 09:58:27 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.94.185.246]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NV400ITXBDFRM60@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 09:58:27 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <56023E8A.4020209@yandex.ru> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.172 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:190270 Archived-At: > Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 08:54:18 +0300 > > 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? With such a difference in back-end implementation of a rollback, it would be appropriate to have a separate back-end method that produces the warning language. > And having just one warning means it has to convey both the sense of > danger *and* the choice of Git command to be used. Probably a good idea, but having the back-end produce the warning, I think it's solvable. > 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. But then what will we do with back-ends where there's only one command for a rollback, and it works regardless of whether the the commit was published?