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

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden,
>  address@hidden
> From: Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 23:06:14 +0300
> 
> On 10/01/2015 10:59 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > v and c are neighbors, so I don't see why "C-x v c" would be hard.
> 
> It's not hard, it's harder. Again, if `vc-commit' is going to be the 
> preferred command, it should use the better binding.

The difference is too small to justify breaking old habits, IMO.

> Arguing otherwise is discouraging, and it's a good example of why focus 
> on backward compatibility saps mental energy. Would you prefer I don't 
> work on this change at all?

No, I would prefer that you'd be more willing to compromise at times.

> > I ask once again why not make vc-next-action support some simple
> > workflow with modern VCSes.
> 
> That's very vague.

I described up-thread what I had in mind in more detail: a CVS-like
workflow.

> >> 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.
> >
> > If by "locking VCS" you mean RCS, then I use it from time to time.
> 
> Could you answer that question, then?

I thought I already did: I always use RCS for files I maintain myself,
so other users are not involved, and locking is a no-op.