Re: RCS, again: another removed functionality: undo last-checkin

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 10/01/2015 10:06 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > > Maybe we should simply leave the locking VCSes out of this.  People
> > > who use those back-ends have used vc-next-action for a long time, so I
> > > guess they won't really need vc-steal-lock.
> AFAICS, "C-x v c" and "C-x v C" are both available, and should be good
> candidates for vc-checkin, I think.

Thinking back to your argument that "For a centralized version control 
system, if any work file in the VC fileset is out of date, offer to 
update the fileset" still makes sense, it sounds like we should use a 
more complex `vc-commit' that would incorporate that step, as well as 
the checkin action itself.

Further, creating a new binding for `vc-commit' looks like a 
half-measure. If we intend it to be used more, it should occupy the 
easier to hit key sequence (C-x v v).

If we agree on that, there are several options for vc-next-action. 
Either find it a new binding, or remove its binding altogether a take 
care of locking backends some other way (either with a dedicated 
vc-steal-lock command, or by locking right before committing, like 
explained previously).

To my (obviously) limited knowledge, RMS is the only user of a locking 
backend, and so far he hasn't answered the pertinent question about his 
workflow.