Robert Widhopf-Fenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > - in inventory mode I do not know if the file has changed or > not (or did I miss a new gimmick). You may even type "U" > on any file giving you an error without a reasonable > message for junk files. So why should we allow this > command in inventory mode, it does "not" change es > inventory?
Clear, I don't like the idea of reverting a file from the inventory buffer. Actually, I don't like the inventory buffer at all, which may explain that ;-) And actually, I don't like the idea of reverting a buffer at all. Reverting from ediff, hunk by hunk, is a much safer alternative in 99% cases! But still: * Some people like their inventory buffer and seem never to leave it. Seems fair to allow them to use this buffer as a starting point for most operations. * Someone asked for it. * On a large tree, running tla-changes may be a bit long, so, if you know what you're doing, and if you already have an inventory buffer open, then, reverting from the inventory buffer is the right choice. > - Before reverting, the user should inspect the changes in > order to ensure nothing will be lost. And where do we do > that? In tla-changes ... or tla-file-diff ... > - the last one is more an educating reason, This is an acceptable reason. Not sufficient in my opinion, but I'm still open for discussion. > but for the > same reason I would remove tla-file-revert. Ah, one "detail" : both tla-changes-revert and tla-inventory-revert are wrappers arount tla-file-revert. So, I'd advise you NOT to remove this function ;-) But we could remove the (interactive) statement! I also don't think this is a good idea, because if the user knows what he's doing (eg. He's just ran tla-file-diff), then, from a file buffer, running M-x tla-file-revert RET yes RET is much faster than 1) C-c T c & wait for tla changes the process to complete 2) Find the file in the list 3) 'U' And the step 2) is also error-prone if you have several files with similar names, so it may be better to revert from the file buffer itself) > - and then there is the point below. Actually I deleted an file by > accident today and I resurrected it by getting the latest revision > in /tmp and copying the file from there, since this way I did not > need to look up some docs ... We clearly have something to add here. There shouldn't be much to do. PS: the answer was cp $(tla file-find foo) . -- Matthieu
