Subject: bug#21383: Static revisions in vc-working-revision

From: Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2015 18:29:26 -0400

>> Yes, the file names would be relative to default-directory.
> Does vc-status get a relative file name as input?

Currently, I don't think so.  But that could be changed if needed.

> b) how are you going to enforce it?.

By checking all callers?

> (*) If we try to eliminate this duplication of info, we introduce
> duplication of effort inside VC. Seems to be pointless complexity.

Clearly it's easy to get back the absolute file name with just
(expand-file-name <FILE>), and I don't see where we'd obviously get
duplication of efforts.  So I'm not sure why you think it'd add complexity.

What I do see as a problem is that it would require a careful
study&adjustment of the whole VC code.  I'm not sure if the result would
be more complex or simpler, admittedly.  I think it'd be about the same,
just with cleaner semantics.

> This is true, but I'm not sure what you're getting at. Sorry.

I guess I don't know either, I was just pointing out that the problem
you point out can be defined away as a feature.

        Stefan