Subject: bug#78890: 31.0.50; Messy vc-annotate buffer names

From: Sean Whitton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 17:57:43 +0100

Hello,

On Thu 26 Jun 2025 at 09:54am -07, Jim Porter wrote:

> On 6/26/2025 8:06 AM, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Removing vc-ensure-vc-buffer was intentional, and it shouldn't just go
>> back -- that was part of adding vc-buffer-overriding-fileset.  What do
>> you both think to something like this:
>
> One small issue I noticed: if you kill the original buffer, then
> 'file-buffer' will be nil and we fall back to using 'file' when naming
> the Annotate buffer. We should probably just use the nondirectory part
> of file though. Otherwise, we'd display the absolute filename in the
> Annotate buffer name. Something like this patch:

Well, I was wondering about this.  I was thinking that using the
absolute filename was desirable in that case for disambiguation.
If file-buffer is non-nil then we already know it will have been
uniquified so as to be unambiguous.

-- 
Sean Whitton