From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: RCS, again: another removed functionality: undo last-checkin Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:53:51 -0400 Message-ID: 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> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1443650148 17662 80.91.229.3 (30 Sep 2015 21:55:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 21:55:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Stephen J. Turnbull" , dak@gnu.org, eliz@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 30 23:55:39 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 1ZhPLf-0004da-Hl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 23:55:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34021 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhPLe-0007sT-Vg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:55:38 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53855) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zh9Ox-0006vY-W2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:54:00 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zh9Ox-0005u2-0N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:53:59 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:43754) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zh9Os-0005rY-2M; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:53:54 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CdDQA731xV/wihxEVcgxCEAshgBAICgTw9EAEBAQEBAQGBCkEFg10BAQMBViMFCwsOJhIUGA0kiDcIzyMBAQEBBgIBH4s6hQUHhC0FmSyaE4FFI2GDMyKCeAEBAQ X-IPAS-Result: A0CdDQA731xV/wihxEVcgxCEAshgBAICgTw9EAEBAQEBAQGBCkEFg10BAQMBViMFCwsOJhIUGA0kiDcIzyMBAQEBBgIBH4s6hQUHhC0FmSyaE4FFI2GDMyKCeAEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,465,1427774400"; d="scan'208";a="166460031" Original-Received: from 69-196-161-8.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([69.196.161.8]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP; 30 Sep 2015 00:53:54 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id B670E627CC; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:53:51 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <560B4899.2070708@yandex.ru> (Dmitry Gutov's message of "Wed, 30 Sep 2015 05:27:37 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.181 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:190490 Archived-At: > It also performs that weird step: "If every file in the VC fileset is not > registered for version control, register the fileset (but don't commit)", > aborting if some of the files in the fileset are unregistered and others > are registered. Right. From a modern VCS's point of view, I think vc-next-action just doesn't make any sense, and trying to be more clever at guessing what the user intended won't get us very far. That's why I think we'd be better off providing vc-commit. AFAIK, all other operations provided by vc-next-action can be reached via other commands, so the only new command that's really needed is vc-commit. Then we can just keep vc-next-action for those old VCSes or for those rare users who like it. > The section dedicated to "For old-style locking-based version control > systems" in vc-next-action's docstring is more convoluted. As long as we're > dedicated to supporting them, I'm not sure what change would be appropriate. The change I'm hinting at is to declare vc-next-action obsolete, tho I know Eric won't like it. But even if we want to keep it, I think it's important, from a design point of view, to make sure that it's never *necessary* to use vc-next-action. Stefan