Re: Passing flags using vc-do-command

[Stefan Monnier]

> I'm open to suggestions for a better name...

There's a lot of freedom here: vc-run, vc-run-process, vc-run-command,
vc-do-process, vc-call-process, ...

> But maybe it's cleaner to make an incompatible change and just replace
> vc-do-command.

You don't have throw away vc-do-command right away, but yes, make
a brand new command without paying attention to vc-do-command, adding
the features that would be handy, and maybe dropping some that aren't
needed any more.

It should pay particular attention to asynchronous execution, since more
commands should be changed (in the future) to use asynchronous
execution, and that feature was added to vc-do-command "with minimal
changes" which ends up not being always the most convenient.

> I could take a look at the current uses of vc-do-command / call-process
> / start-process in the various backends in trunk to see if I can
> accommodate for possible other shortcomings of the current version.  But
> I'd appreciate some help with that: If people could give me concrete
> examples of useful additions, that would be great.

As mentioned I think it should centralize/unify the handling of
vc-<backend>-program, and maybe also some of the handling of
vc-<foo>-switches.


        Stefan