GNU bug report logs - #73407
31.0.50; Add diff-discard-hunk

Previous Next

Full log

Message #44 received at 73407 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, dgutov <at> yandex.ru
Cc: 73407 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, juri <at> linkov.net
Subject: [PATCH v4] bug#73407: 31.0.50; Add diff-discard-hunk
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 16:43:48 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello,

On Tue 24 Sep 2024 at 03:21pm +03, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> We should come up with a better name for this command.
> diff-discard-hunk tells me the command will discard the hunk, but says
> nothing about applying it, let alone reverse-applying it.  How about
> diff-revert-hunk, or maybe diff-revert-and-discard?

Oh, nice.  I was just following Magit, but including "revert" is better,
indeed.  I think I prefer diff-revert-and-kill-hunk.

>> +This command is useful in buffers generated by @w{@kbd{C-x v =}} and
>> +@w{@kbd{C-x v D}} (@pxref{Old Revisions}).  You can use this command to
>> +remove hunks you never intend to commit, such as temporary debug prints,
>> +and the like.
>
> This text could also use some clarification: "remove hunks you never
> intended to commit" only hints on what it actually does.  A better
> description would be something like "undo some of the changes you made
> that you didn't intend".  I wouldn't mention "commit" at all, since
> AFAIU this command is not specific to VC and doesn't require a VCS.

Yes, this is the diff-mode manual, so that makes sense.
I've made a similar change in the docstring but kept a reference to
committing, there.

>> -           (message "%d hunks failed; no buffers changed" failures)))))
>> +           (message "%d hunks failed; no buffers changed" failures)
>> +           failures))))
>
> This comes from existing text, but still: what does the above say when
> there's only 1 failure? does it say "1 hunks failed"?  If so, can we
> improve the handling of singular/plural here?

I've installed a fix for that.

On Tue 24 Sep 2024 at 03:22pm +03, Dmitry Gutov wrote:

> I'm a little concerned about the binding.
>
> We have 'diff-hunk-kill' on M-k (and also 'k'), and this new addition is
> actually more destructive. I'm expecting users will trip over the difference
> and call one of them when they wanted to call the other.

Yeah, and thinking about it more, it also doesn't really match what C-c
C-k does elsewhere in Emacs.  I've made it C-c M-r in the attached v4.

-- 
Sean Whitton

[v4-0001-New-command-diff-revert-and-kill-hunk.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Previous Next

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