[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#2675: 23.0.91; unnecessary vc-next-action conflicts in vc-dir direc

From: Dan Nicolaescu
Subject: bug#2675: 23.0.91; unnecessary vc-next-action conflicts in vc-dir directory
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:08:42 -0700 (PDT)

Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:

  > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Stefan Monnier
  > <address@hidden> wrote:
  > >> Then hitting "v" on the first line of the buffer gives the following 
  > >
  > > From where I stand, the problem is the use of `v' in vc-dir.  While the
  > > concept of "next-action" might make sense for single files, it's not
  > > nearly as useful for vc-dir, especially since vc-dir has a lot of free
  > > key-bindings, so it can easily use separate bindings for
  > > commit/checkout/merge/...
  > Yeah, good point; the concept of "next-action" has always kind of
  > bothered me, even in the old single-file case...
  > Even if it's sometimes a handy shortcut, I think in many cases I'd
  > prefer a firmer notion of what my command was going to do...

I actually like vc-next-action, it does what I want most of the time...

  > How about "c" for commit in *vc-dir*?
  > Of course, there needs to be a vc-commit command first... !

Add the vc-commit command, and I'll add the vc-dir binding for it :-)

  > [I'd also suggest "a" as an alias for "register", as "i" seems obscure.]

"i" comes from "C-x v i" -- in general the VC commands in vc-dir use the
bindings from the C-x v map.

  > [Offhand, I think they'd be good bindings for the global keymap too,
  > but it contains so much weird cruft bound to apparently arbitrary
  > letters, it's probably too late to make any sense of that...]

Probably too late for the 23.1 release, but if you want to open the
discussion after the release, maybe there won't be too much pushback for
getting rid of things like C-x v h

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]