Re: vc-do-command: doc/code inconsistency

[Andre Spiegel]

address@hidden (Kai Großjohann) writes:

> The doc says that output goes to BUFFER, but the code seems to make
> output go to (current-buffer).  If I understand it correctly.

I don't know what makes you believe so.  To me the code seems rather
clear (incidentally, the buffer-setup thing was written by Stefan :-).

> While I'm at it: why is the file-relative-name used in that function,
> rather than putting the expanded file name in squeezed?

Probably because one of the backends refused to work otherwise (CVS is
a likely candidate).  Since this code does do its job, I have not yet
found significant reason to put any effort into simplifying it.
(Surely I didn't write it that way.)

If there's anything that concerns you, let me know.  But perhaps such
detailed discussions are better carried out in personal e-mail?  My
address is listed at the top of vc.el :-).