Re: What's your favourite *under_publicized* editing feature ofEmacs?

[Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au>]

On 27/02/2011 10:46 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Cthun<cthun_117@qmail.net.au>  writes:
>> But that's not the same thing as software versioning, or anywhere
>> close.
>
> One can still use the same tools nowadays.

You can use a cheese grater to peel potatoes, too. But I wouldn't 
recommend it.

>>> The gestation of both articles and novels is rarely linear.
>>
>> True enough. But it is also not going to fit especially well to what
>> systems designed for software revision control do. There is a single
>> long piece of text
>
> Which can still be separated into chapters if you like, subject to
> reordering and conditional inclusion.

A single C source file contains separate functions.

What's your point?

>> rather than lots of interacting software modules, for one thing; there
>> are no builds or library dependencies or bug reports or feature
>> requests.
>
> Last time I looked, revision control did not concern itself with builds
> or library dependencies or bug reports or feature requests.

Sure it does.

Check out sourceforge sometime. You'll note that the key features 
involve many of these things. They work together as an integrated whole. 
What is the "master branch" but the currently evolving code base, the 
"2.1 branch" but the 2.1 build of the software, etc.?

>> There's also a point where it's actually *finished*,
>
> Uh, you already forgot what I wrote about the various versions of
> articles

No, it's simply not relevant. Articles are typically written, revised, 
and eventually *finished*.

>> while software is never finished and has many successive versions
>> released, each fixing the bugs in the previous and adding new
>> features.
>
> Like a republished polished article.

Articles are not typically published with "bugs" and then later 
republished without them. Typical articles are published once and then 
that's it.

>> In short there's almost nothing of what source code control systems
>> are actually there for. If you want to be able to recover deleted
>> material you use strikethru (and delete anything still in strikethru
>> when it's done) or cut it and save it to a clippings file or
>> something.
>
> Gross.  You are not confusing word processing on a computer with
> handwritten manuscripts by chance?

Of course not. You on the other hand seem to be confusing word 
processing with software development!