GNU bug report logs - #12441
24.2.50; emacs-bzr-version is not reliable

Previous Next

Full log

Message #18 received at 12441 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Harald Hanche-Olsen <hanche <at> math.ntnu.no>
To: rgm <at> gnu.org
Cc: 12441 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#12441: Acknowledgement (24.2.50; emacs-bzr-version is not
	reliable)
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:02:59 +0200 (CEST)

[Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org> (2012-09-14 16:16:20 UTC)]

> Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
> 
> No, that works fine. It also takes exactly the same time to checkout and
> produces a directory with exactly the same size (assuming a shared
> repository) as the lightweight case. So I'd suggest forgetting about
> lightweight checkouts.

Hmm, I thought I had done the experiment and found differently. But
redoing it, I see that you are indeed right.

> I'd say what you're doing is outside the simple uses cases that
> emacs-bzr-version (which is really just a minor convenience for bug
> reports) is for. You obviously know what revision you are using since
> you specified it manually.

Yeah, but there is a risk of getting confused while bisecting looking
for the revision that introduced a certain bug.

> It would perhaps be better if we returned nil rather the wrong answer in
> your case, but I see no way even to do that.

In emacs-bzr-get-version, in version.el, there seems to be a special
branch in the cond dealing with lightweight checkouts. Maybe you could
just remove that branch? It will only work, and unreliably to boot,
with a lightweight checkout from a local branch.

> Which is a long-winded way of saying this gets a "wontfix" from me.

I can live with that, if you don't think my suggestion above is good.

- Harald

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.