Subject: Re: bug#63829: 29.0.90; project-find-file's future history breaks with common-parent-directory

From: Dmitry Gutov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2023 04:23:14 +0300

Hi Spencer,

Thanks for the ping.

On 06/06/2023 18:55, Spencer Baugh wrote:

>> But so far the patch over there is not complete yet, is it? I wouldn't
>> say it's a settled matter so far.
> 
> Yes, I expect there are any number of alternative implementation
> strategies, I'm not at all tied to using
> project-current-directory-override.  Happy to port to whatever approach
> we end up with.

Notes:

- We're still using project-current-directory-override, not migrated to 
anything else yet.
- I've pushed my earlier patch which should fix the immediate bug as 
reported.

Let's talk about yours a little bit more. I'm a little wary of adding a 
specialized feature this way (being able to visit the file corresponding 
to the current one only), but that patch might be the most optimal still.

>>> BTW, I asked about this before inhttps://debbugs.gnu.org/58447#127
>>> and then it was deemed to be not too general to handle, so I backed it out
>>> inhttps://debbugs.gnu.org/58447#160  with such conclusion:
>>>     OTOH, `C-x p f M-p' in another project is not my primary
>>> workflow.
>>>     But if someone wants to keep a plain history, this could be added
>>>     later in master, e.g. by a new value of project-read-file-name-function
>>>     and a function that is mostly a copy of project--read-file-cpd-relative.
>>> So maybe this could be implemented in master now?
>>
>> I think the design there was to use relative file names in history? Or
>> a different variable for project file name history (which would use
>> relative names only). I'm not ruling that out, but the patch proposed
>> here is a little more focused.
>>
>> OTOH, it only allows finding the "current" file in the other project,
>> but not other files that were previously visited too. Spencer, what do
>> you think about that capability? Do you also feel it is missing and
>> would like to look into it next? Then the current patch might be the
>> wrong direction.
> 
> Hm, the main thing I want is to make it very easy to visit the current
> file in another project - I am frequently getting user requests for that
> feature.  (Mainly because our workflow heavily uses a "git worktree"
> equivalent, where users have one project for each bug/branch they're
> working on, all with basically the same layout, so "visit the same file
> in a different project" is also "visit the same file in a different
> branch", which is often useful.  (I actually might work on some code to
> help implement the same kind of workflow for Emacs development, one
> worktree per bug/branch))

I suppose one other way to do that would be to create a dedicated 
command just for that. But that's a little clunkier -- would require a 
separate binding.

> I'm not sure I understand the alternative - the idea would be to share
> project file name history between all projects?  I guess that could be
> nice, although I don't personally use file name history that much, and
> AFAIK it wouldn't solve any concrete user problems, so I'm not really
> motivated to implement it.

The alternative is a little more general, e.g. propertize every such 
history entry with the value of the root, so that they can be 
post-processed to adapt to any other root directory.

This shouldn't take too much work, actually. But I don't know if that is 
indeed a necessary feature. From the discussion 
(https://debbugs.gnu.org/58447), I had been under impression that it 
would be wanted, but it might be just "nice to have".

Juri, are *you* okay with the functionality in Spencer's patch? No need 
for further generality?

> However, if we did share project file name history in that way, I'd want
> to still automatically prepend the "current file" as history.  Even if
> we didn't navigate to the current file via project-find-file, I still
> want to make it very easy to visit the current file in another project.
> Just sharing project file name history doesn't provide that.

Fair point.