GNU bug report logs - #36644
Git log search

Previous Next

Full log

Message #59 received at 36644 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
To: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
 "36644 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <36644 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>, Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
Subject: Re: bug#36644: Git log search
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 18:53:01 +0300

On 24.07.2019 18:46, Robert Pluim wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 18:10:35 +0300, Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru> said:
> 
>      Dmitry> On 19.07.2019 1:32, Juri Linkov wrote:
>      >>> We can't really use this approach. VC is a high level abstraction,
>      >>> so we try to define the semantics well.
>      >>
>      >> I tend to agree with Robert.  A string have to be passed to the backend as is.
>      >> It seems such situations when these strings should be compatible between
>      >> different backends (such as running the same command on one backend,
>      >> and then repeating the same search on another backend by retrieving
>      >> a previous argument from the history via M-p) are very rare.
> 
>      Dmitry> I might agree with you from the practical standpoint, but
>      Dmitry> vc-log-search needs a docstring that actually describes what the
>      Dmitry> function is going to do. Including info on how PATTERN is going to be
>      Dmitry> interpreted.
> 
> If it were implemented as 'backend show me all the logs and then emacs
> will search through them' then that would be required, but itʼs not,
> itʼs implemented as 'backend show me the logs which match STRING'

Again, it's about documentation and about commands doing things in a way 
that the user can anticipate.

>      Dmitry> E.g. whether "foo.txt" will only match literally, or whether "." can
>      Dmitry> be substituted by any character.
> 
> That will depend on the backend
> 
>      Dmitry> And if PATTERN is a regexp, what kind of regexp it's going to be
>      Dmitry> interepreted as: basic RE, extended RE, Emacs RE, or Perl RE (probably
>      Dmitry> not the last one anyway).
> 
> As will this
> 
>      Dmitry> I suppose we can choose one of these and say e.g. that pattern is
>      Dmitry> interpreted as an extended regular expression, except for some
>      Dmitry> backends that don't support that. I wonder how we're going to convey
>      Dmitry> the latter to the user.
> 
> Itʼs not a pattern. Itʼs a string that is passed as-is to the backend,
> which is free to interpret it as it wishes. From my viewpoint, we can
> just say
> 
> "Search for STRING, which is passed unsullied to the backend's log
> search command.  Consult the documentation for your backend to
> understand the matching method it uses to search for STRING."

IME this doesn't match the way we try to document commands in Emacs, but 
I wouldn't want to spend much time arguing about this.

Eli, could you weigh in in this discussion? Would you say Robert's 
proposal is acceptable?

Previous Next

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