From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: smerge-ediff "MINE" and "OTHER" monikers unhelpful Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:45:29 +0100 Message-ID: <8761ref7hy.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87zjowpn2s.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87a9gvnreg.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1385549325 29382 80.91.229.3 (27 Nov 2013 10:48:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:48:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 27 11:48:51 2013 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 1Vlcfq-0006wJ-EY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:48:50 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35041 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vlcfp-0003fs-VN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 05:48:49 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58054) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vlcfm-0003fi-5S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 05:48:47 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vlcfk-00014Z-GQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 05:48:46 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:35289) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vlcfk-00014L-Cw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 05:48:44 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42465 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vlcfj-00065l-QG; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 05:48:44 -0500 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DC339E0498; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:45:29 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:40:51 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:165800 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >> At any rate, this is what I went with. Feel free to take it; I have a >> copyright assignment for Emacs on file. > > Installed with minor tweaks, thank you, I've finally taken the time to take a look at it. The only user-visible tweak in my opinion, while unquestionably deliberate, is a mistake: you decided to shove MINE = ... and OTHER = ... strings into the buffer names before the identifying strings. For one thing, smerge-ediff (purportedly as opposed to the smerge-mode not visibly involved in the user interaction) does not expose _any_ of the MINE/OTHER terminology to the user, so this is a distraction not reflecting anything in the ediff-help. For the usual case of a rebase along the lines of git pull -r it labels the upstream changes as "MINE" and my own changes as "OTHER". Not helpful. If there was _any_ point in labelling, one should use A and B, the actual names used for the ediff keybindings that are active here. But it's not usually a puzzler to figure out whether A or B comes first, so that seems unnecessary. But worse is that we are talking about the buffer names of buffers in a horizontally split window. For the normal terminal line length of 80, and for a somewhat normal mode line with a non-minimal file name, this means that the misleading and useless information does not leave _any_ room for the helpful information on the split mode line. So we are back to where we started from, just in a more complex manner. -- David Kastrup