GNU bug report logs - #38044
27.0.50; There should be an easier way to look at a specific vc commit

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2019 15:18:03 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Tags: fixed

Found in version 27.0.50

Fixed in version 27.1

Done: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #140 received at 38044 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman <at> gmx.net>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org, juri <at> linkov.net, 38044 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, dgutov <at> yandex.ru
Subject: Re: bug#38044: 27.0.50; There should be an easier way to look at a
 specific vc commit
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 10:25:15 +0100
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:24:41 +0200 Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:

>> From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman <at> gmx.net>
>> Cc: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>,  juri <at> linkov.net,  larsi <at> gnus.org,
>>   38044 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 22:15:21 +0100
>>
>> However, I'm not thrilled with the thought of having to type two
>> prefix keys to invoke it.
>
> AFAIU, this command is not something that will be invoked too
> frequently,

That's not true for me, I use my srb-git-log command much more often
than I do `C-x v L' precisely because the emacs-bug and -devel lists
make many references to commits by means of the commit hash, and I find
it much more convenient to go directly from that to the commit message
(and maybe then the diff too), rather than first calling up the whole
commit log and searching for the hash in it.

>             and typing C-u twice is not much harder than doing it
> once.

I find even just typing one C-u less convenient, hence my suggestion
below, which I'm glad you find worth considering.

>> Since one of the desiderata of this command, perhaps even the main
>> one, is that it should act on the revision ID at point, how about
>> making just `C-x v L' do that if it recognizes the word at point as
>> a revision ID?
>
> We could do that, yes.
>
>> If this is deemed to unreliable, it could be conditioned by a user
>> option, or perhaps (though more annoying) by asking for
>> confirmation.
>
> Fine with me, assuming the rest of the proposal is accepted.

Thanks,

Steve Berman




This bug report was last modified 4 years and 355 days ago.

Previous Next


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