Re: No commit in vc?

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

() Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
() Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:00:37 -0500

   This is discouraged and poorly supported by `bzr', so at least
   for vc-bzr.el it makes sense.

Now, perhaps, but who knows if a future bzr might be improved?

   This said, it's OK to replace "recommend" with some other
   formulation, like "pending merges: you may want to commit
   before any further development" if that soothes you,

I think any forumalation is fine, in the right place.
However, the status message is not the right place.

What this thread has taught me is that for bzr, "merge" does
not imply "commit".  To DTRT, VC "merge" should allow for
this split in all backends, and (perhaps with a prefix arg)
do a (perhaps confirmed by y-or-n-p) commit.  That is, VC
"merge" should not assume backend "merge" implies "commit".

If VC "merge" MUST imply a "commit" for hysterical raisons
(i don't know, never tried VC "merge"), we can always coin
an operation that means "apply changes from a branch but
don't commit", and make VC "merge" for bzr do "bzr merge;
bzr commit".

In this way, there is no more need to recommend anything.
If the user might want to do something, that can be expressed
directly to Emacs.

thi