GNU bug report logs -
#20637
incompatible, undocumented change to vc-working-revision
Previous Next
Full log
Message #76 received at 20637 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 04/14/2016 09:31 PM, Michael Albinus wrote:
> Yes. I hope we could use more file properties caches. To be investigated.
OK, that could be a fine solution to the problem of vc-registered's
slowness, but it adds complexity. So I'm still in favor of equating
`unregistered' with nil, .
> And as said already several times, if
> we would document vc-* functions in the manual, it would allow us to
> have a more global view on proposed changes.
I disagree. The manual is the documentation for the users, to explain in
depth, give examples, et cetera. The docstrings and VC's internal
documentation have to stand on their own. It would be silly if the
difference between `vc-backend' and `vc-responsible-backend' were to
only be explained in the manual, but not in the docstrings.
That would also be unfair to people such as myself who prefer to consult
the latter.
So, do you need anything from me in this area? E.g., feel free to give a
list of docstrings that seem insufficient to you, together with what you
feel they are missing.
> I trust you that you have
> all involved interfaces in your mind. I haven't, and I would like to see
> how an interface change compares to the other interfaces.
I don't really know everything about VC, I just have some recollections
about dealing with it, as well as experience writing a third-party
package depending on VC's API.
To get an opinion about the current bug report, I still had to dig into
the code and investigate, look at the commit history, search for call
occurrences, etc.
> But you have spoken about
> design decisions in the past (for example whether unregistered files
> could be an argument), which I believe is not documented.
BTW, we've mentioned it before when fixing my old bug report about VC
using too many process calls
(http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=11757#77).
It may not have even been a deliberate design decision, but it's the way
`vc-state' is used. Which, in turn, allows backend implementations to be
sloppy in the cases that are (almost?) never exercised.
> And at least for me the "global view" about vc-* functions is missing,
> and how they are related.
I usually tease that kind of information out by reading the source code.
Is there anything in particular I could help add to your understanding
of the "global view"?
> Yep. Pls test my patch, and confirm whether it is sufficient. Same for
> Glenn, if possible. I would like to close this bug then, removing a
> release blocker for Emacs 25.1.
It must fix this bug, since it reverts to the old code, and testing
Glenn's example from the description confirms as much.
So I think it can be closed, and the discussion should move to emacs-devel.
This bug report was last modified 9 years and 38 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.