bug-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#20637: incompatible, undocumented change to vc-working-revision


From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: bug#20637: incompatible, undocumented change to vc-working-revision
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 02:28:22 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0

On 05/24/2015 02:49 AM, Glenn Morris wrote:

Current master:
  (vc-working-revision "1")  ;  "master"

This has been caused by the commit 7f9b037245ddb662ad98685e429a2498ae6b7c62, which made both vc-state and vc-working-revision use vc-responsible-backend instead of vc-backend.

As a result, in some backends these functions started return non-nil values for unknown files or directories, as long as they lie inside a VC repository.

This change is indeed backward-incompatible, and it breaks the previous assumption of some backend functions that if FILE has been passed to it, then it's surely registered with the current backend. That's why the commit included changes adding lines like (unless (memq (vc-state file) '(nil unregistered))...), but it didn't get all affected code.

In particular, it breaks an assumption I made when fixing #11757, that vc-git-state never receives an unregistered file as input. So if you evaluate (vc-state "1") now, it'll return `up-to-date'.

While reverting the change makes some tests fail, we should fix them in different ways.

For some backends, maybe, we should accept that (vc-state default-directory) and (vc-working-revision default-directory) will return nil. Alternatively, fix that problem inside the respective backends, without changing the dispatching functions.

Also, reverting this commit also seems to uncover tests that shouldn't pass anyway. Checks like

  (should (eq (vc-state default-directory)
              (vc-state default-directory backend)))

don't verify much, and in this case they seem to verify the wrong thing. More on that in the respective threads in emacs-devel later.

Michael, thoughts?





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]