Masatake YAMATO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Good. BTW, Is there anyway to generate conflicts repeatedly?
> I'd like to write bridge xtla and smerge-mode.
Well, if you know what you expect, you can also have your "private"
test project. Get two working copy, modify the first and commit.
Modify the second and update.
There's not much to do for a "bridge" between smerge and xtla. Mostly
a good keybinding and a menu item I think.
The code I had written to solve conflicts should be dropped for that.
smerge-mode is better.
> - The command is rather directory oriented. It is not bad to be called from
> dired.
> (I like dired:-) The bad news is that ?T is bound to dired-do-touch.
I don't like dired ;-)
Well, nothing against it, but I do file manipulation from the command
line, so, I prefer not touching dired-related code, because I don't
know what people would expect from it.
> - A bit crazy idea: Bind the funciton to ?< in *tla-revision* buffer.
> Analogy of ?> (get).
You usually visit *tla-revision* buffer for an existing version, and
here, we're going to import a new one. This would only be meaningfull
from a newly created version, with '+ v' in the versions buffer.
It doesn't seem to me to be the best approach, but that may be usefull
to have it in addition to the directory-oriented feature, because some
people (mainly beginners) may want to create a new project from the
archive browser.
> One of the primary target of xtla is pcl-cvs users. pcl-cvs users may expect
> xtla.el
> to have functions found in pcl-cvs.
I'm an ex pcl-cvs user. I never used CVS for cooperative development,
but only for multi-sites development and history management, so, I
almost never had to manage conflicts, and updates were trivial. So, my
main use of PCL-CVS was just to see the list of "modified" files,
select them, and commit.
This is not what I find in the inventory buffer, but in the changes
buffer.
That's why I almost never use the inventory buffer, but I'm a fan of
the M-x tla-changes RET feature. (Which I'm very happy to see bound to
C-x T c ;-)
> How do you think add "priority" to the TODO list item?
>
> e.g.
>
> Toward version 1.0:
> - tla-invetory
> ...
> ...
- tla-changes improved.
Anyway, my vision of the priority is : When I need a feature, I
implement it.
BTW, anyone has an idea of when the next Emacs release will be ?
Should we target a 1.0 release before that ?
--
Matthieu
