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

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org, stephen.berman <at> gmx.net, 38044 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, juri <at> linkov.net
Subject: bug#38044: 27.0.50; There should be an easier way to look at a specific vc commit
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 21:40:32 +0200

On 20.11.2019 18:34, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> How would that even work? vc-diff will always delegate to vc-git-diff.
> 
> It will work if we program either vc-diff or vc-git-diff to call "git
> show" under some specific circumstances.

That makes little sense to me, sorry.

>>>> IMO the log message is more important because it describes and justifies
>>>> what happened. Showing the diff is good as well.
>>>
>>> That's not relevant to the issue at hand.  Like it or not, VCSes other
>>> than Git describe a revision by the diffs alone.
>>
>> It's 100% relevant, and the fact that certain older VCSes can't do this
>> should have no bearing on whether we implement a satisfactory UI in VC
>> or not. That's the whole purpose of VC: make interacting with different
>> VS systems easier.
> 
> Easier, yes.  But also present the results in a familiar enough form.
> If users are accustomed to seeing a revision described by diffs, then
> this is what they should by default see in VC, IMO.

There's nothing unfamiliar about also seeing the author name and the 
commit message.

Also: most of our users are Git users. Hence, users are accustomed to 
'git show'.

>>>> Maybe the other VCSes don't have a simple command to do the same, but
>>>> they can either be called twice, or use special formatting. For
>>>> instance, Hg can use this command:
>>>>
>>>> hg log -r <REV> -p
>>>
>>> IMO, this is over-engineering.  If the VCS developers don't see the
>>> need to have a commands which shows meta-data together with the diffs,
>>> we should not force that on that VCS.
>>
>> They added the '-p' flag. So apparently they did see the need.
> 
> Then maybe the hg back-end should indeed call "log -r -p", if that's
> what hg users are used to (I don't use hg).  What I mean is that we
> should show a revision like users are accustomed to see it with the
> particular back-end; jumping through hoops to produce Git-like display
> where users don't really expect it is IMO over-engineering.

I disagree. I think the possible arguments are exhausted at this point.

Are you going to invoke the privilege of the Emacs maintainer? All I got 
to say to this is "lisp/vc/*" is near my name in admin/MAINTAINERS.

> And I'm also saying that conceptually a revision's description is a
> kind of "diff" operation, so it should preferably be a sub-command of
> "C-x v =".

That's not how I think about it either. Again: I think the metadata is 
just as important. And we can't get to that metadata from the diff output.

Previous Next

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