Re: VC mode and git

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Eli Zaretskii writes:
 > > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>

 > > OK, so I interpreted this as [...]
 > > 
 > > 3. Edit ChangeLog and C-x v v to commit, successfully.
 > > 
 > >    But some log messages were missing.
 > 
 > Which ones?  I'm afraid I'm not following you in this part.

Richard wrote:

 > >  >     Something went wrong with lisp/ChangeLog.
 > >  > 
 > >  >     It appears that my change log entries went into an old
 > >  >     version of that file; I don't know why this happened,
 > >  >     since I wrote them today after doing 'git pull'.

>From "old version", I assume he recognized that because logs were
missing from the file.

 > > If the previous pull succeeded, does this mean that he lost a
 > > race in a handful of minutes?  And lost "a lot" of text?  Weird.
 > 
 > One possibility is a merge from emacs-24, which can potentially bring
 > quite a few commits from the release branch, and is done by a program,
 > so it can be very fast.  Look at the long list of the modified files
 > that are staged, which the pull succeeded to merge -- they do suggest
 > a lot of changes were fetched.

You think Richard pulled from emacs-24?  We'd have to ask him, but I
would think he would have reported that if he had done it.  Otherwise
I don't understand what you're talking about.

 > > In other words, *Emacs* screwed Richard, not git.
 > 
 > Yes, basically.  More accurately, too rudimentary support in VC for
 > Git and the "popular" problems that need to be resolved with it.

Certainly.  And I'll grant that Glenn hammered on the issue of proper
support for Emacs-for-git workflows for months while the transition
was in progress.

 > Saving a file after resolving all of its conflicts automatically
 > runs "git add" for that file in Emacs's VC, so it is already
 > staged.
 > 
 > So yes, "git commit" should have worked.

OK.  If vc does that, I don't understand the intended workflow in vc,
then.  Maybe it's just adapted to what ESR does.