GNU bug report logs - #12492
24.2.50; Open vc-dir buffer easier and faster

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 23:06:01 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Tags: patch

Found in version 24.2.50

Done: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: 12492 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, larsi <at> gnus.org, juri <at> linkov.net
Subject: bug#12492: Acknowledgement (24.2.50; Open vc-dir buffer easier and faster)
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2020 19:12:07 +0200
> Cc: 12492 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, larsi <at> gnus.org, juri <at> linkov.net
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 18:53:39 +0200
> 
> On 06.03.2020 18:14, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > So if we want to document the above two commands, we should do that in
> > the VC chapter, and talk about "project" meaning the current VCS
> > repository?
> 
> Umm, that's not how I would do that.
> 
> Since the idea behind project.el was to create an abstraction that 
> third-party project packages could hook into (Projectile, most 
> prominently), I think making such an emphasis is counter-productive.
> 
> So I'd rather put it in its own section, rather than create an 
> impression that a project = VC repository. But I see how this creates a 
> tension between giving practical advice and saying that "things might 
> change a little as soon as you install a third-party package". Or enable 
> ede-mode, I suppose.

Exactly.  For starters, how do you explain what a "project" is, when
the only example we can give is a repository?

I see nothing wrong with having this in the VC chapter for now; we can
always move it out later, when there are other back-ends.  The
placement of sections in chapters of the manual is neither sacred nor
final.

> BTW, there is a planned cleanup in the API that I've been thinking on 
> for a while. I've been hoping to get it into Emacs 27, but a number of 
> other issues conspired to take up the free time, so I guess it'll only 
> be there in Emacs 28. So I'm not sure to which extent we should document 
> this package in Emacs 27. But the two aforementioned commands will 
> remain there, of course.

I was only thinking about the commands, so the API change should not
be an issue.




This bug report was last modified 5 years and 58 days ago.

Previous Next


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