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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #23 received at 78890 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman <at> gmx.net>
To: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 78890 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Kristoffer Balintona <krisbalintona <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#78890: 31.0.50; Messy vc-annotate buffer names
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 09:14:43 +0200

On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 23:02:31 -0700 Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Thanks, that seems better than my patch (I'm obviously not very familiar
with the VC code).

> I also notice that the previous revisions use the full Git SHA, even though
> they *should* be abbreviated.

I agree.

>                               That's a separate issue though, so I'll file a
> bug for that once I have a patch ready.

Steve Berman

Previous Next

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