Re: VC mode and git

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>> From: Stefan Monnier  Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:34:36 -0400

 >> If someone provides a patch to add an optional new behavior to
 >> vc-next-action, it'll probably be accepted (as long as it's clean
 >> enough).  And as long as noone writes such a patch this discussion
 >> is just hot air.

 > How many people even use vc-next-action these days?

        With Git, I use it strictly as a substitute for the (otherwise
        unavailable) vc-commit.

 > IOW, would it be okay to make it work very differently for modern
 > dVCSes than what it does now?

 > For example, in a Git repository where "git status" shows nothing,
 > vc-next-action invoked without an argument currently says "Fileset is
 > up-to-date" and does nothing, which is IMO less than useful.  Would
 > someone mind if it suggested a "git pull" instead?

 > Also, there's no handling of pull problems, and the handling of
 > conflicts is rudimentary at best.  And, of course, there's no support
 > at all for pushing; there's no notion of local commits that are
 > missing upstream.  Would someone mind if vc-next-action were changed
 > in these regards?

        My Git usage is neither typical nor exemplary, but I both
        git-fetch(1) and git-push(1) from outside of the chroot
        environments I use for development.  (If only because such
        environments lack access to the relevant SSH keys.)

        I have no objections against such features as long as they’re
        optional and never affect the vc-commit function I use.  And
        should they come to be /not/ optional, I guess I’d be able to
        bear with them, either.

-- 
FSF associate member #7257  http://boycottsystemd.org/  … 3013 B6A0 230E 334A