[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit |
Date: |
Sun, 09 Jul 2017 17:19:09 +0300 |
> From: Marcin Borkowski <address@hidden>
> Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2017 11:25:28 +0200
> Cc: address@hidden, Richard Stallman <address@hidden>,
> Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
>
> The main annoyance is that if I edit _more than one file_, and press C-x
> v v, instead of committing my all changes (or at least asking me about
> it), it only commits the changes in the currently edited file. Several
> times I made an incomplete commit because of that. I tried to find an
> option to override this, but to no avail.
You can do what you want with VC by first marking the files you want
to commit in vc-dir buffer.
> I guess that Emacs' VC with distributed VCSs is fundamentally broken,
> since it was really designed with RCS and its likes in mind
You seem to talk only about "C-x v v". That command doesn't assume
RCS-type VCS, it assumes that there's some more-or-less constant
sequence of actions in your workflow, and attempts to support that
sequence by doing "the next thing". I think this concept can be
naturally generalized to modern VCSes, except that the number of
different workflows is larger, definitely more than one. At the time,
I proposed to move in that direction, but people disagreed, so nothing
happened. I still think it's a good idea, so maybe someone will want
to work on it.
But VC includes more than "C-x v v" alone. There are commands like
"C-x v D", "C-x v ~" (just recently mentioned as very important and
useful -- with Git, no less!), "C-x v g" with its sub-commands,
"C-x v l", "C-x v L", "C-x v I"/"C-x v O", "V-x v u", and others. I
see no reasons to ignore these useful commands when talking about VC.
> Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I consider VC's utility (with DVCSs) to
> be zero _at best_.
I think this is at least exaggerated. I certainly don't see how this
could follow from what VC provides.
- Re: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit, (continued)
- Re: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit, Dmitry Gutov, 2017/07/06
- Re: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit, Richard Stallman, 2017/07/07
- Re: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit, Stefan Monnier, 2017/07/07
- Re: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit, Richard Stallman, 2017/07/08
- Re: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit, raman, 2017/07/08
- Re: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/07/08
- Re: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit, Phillip Lord, 2017/07/08
- Re: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit, John Yates, 2017/07/08
- Re: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit, raman, 2017/07/08
- Re: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit, Marcin Borkowski, 2017/07/09
- Re: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- In defense of VC [was: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit], Juliusz Chroboczek, 2017/07/09
- Re: In defense of VC [was: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit], Michael Albinus, 2017/07/10
- Re: In defense of VC [was: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit], Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2017/07/10
- Re: In defense of VC [was: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit], Juliusz Chroboczek, 2017/07/10
- Re: In defense of VC [was: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit], Yuri Khan, 2017/07/10
- Re: In defense of VC [was: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit], Marcin Borkowski, 2017/07/10
- Re: In defense of VC [was: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit], Eli Zaretskii, 2017/07/10
- Re: In defense of VC [was: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit], Dmitry Gutov, 2017/07/16
- Re: In defense of VC [was: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit], Marcin Borkowski, 2017/07/16
- Re: In defense of VC [was: In support of Jonas Bernoulli's Magit], Dmitry Gutov, 2017/07/16