GNU bug report logs - #78890
31.0.50; Messy vc-annotate buffer names

Previous Next

Full log

Message #20 received at 78890 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
To: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman <at> gmx.net>,
 Kristoffer Balintona <krisbalintona <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 78890 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#78890: 31.0.50; Messy vc-annotate buffer names
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 23:02:31 -0700

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

On 6/24/2025 4:50 AM, Stephen Berman via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the 
Swiss army knife of text editors wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 06:41:41 -0400 Kristoffer Balintona <krisbalintona <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Would it be possible to have buffer names more like the following
>> instead upon calls to vc-annotate-next-revision and
>> vc-annotate-prev-revision?
>> 1. *Annotate vtable.el (rev f1737342518)*
>> 2. *Annotate vtable.el (rev fdab542a56201b1581abdc0df940e0c50abde1c7)*
>> 3. *Annotate vtable.el (rev 35e1ab970c1cfc6a1b62fbb920e0d2bb031765da)*
> 
> Does the attached patch give the results you want?

Here's another possible patch for this. It uses 'vc-parent-buffer', 
which might be nil when first annotating a file, but that works out 
nicely, since '(buffer-name nil)' gets the buffer name of the current 
buffer (i.e. the original source file). I think this should be safe, 
though I'm not an expert on the VC internals.

I also notice that the previous revisions use the full Git SHA, even 
though they *should* be abbreviated. That's a separate issue though, so 
I'll file a bug for that once I have a patch ready.

[vc-annotate-buffer-name.diff (text/plain, attachment)]

Previous Next

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