Masatake YAMATO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Using ?R seemed the most natural to me (?S for star-merge, ?R for
>> replay), but I think there was talk the other day about using this for
>> redo. Does anyone have any ideas for a good keybinding for replay?
>
> How many commands for "merge" in tla?
> If it is more than 3, I think it is worth to define prefix for the commands
> like:
>
> Ms => star-merge
> Mr => replay
> Mx => ...
> Mu => update
Yeah, this sounds like a good idea. I think currently only the above
three merge commands are supported, but we might want to add things
like apply-delta later, so room for expansion is good.
By the way, speaking of merging, I've just noticed that if I'm
in the *tla-revisions* buffer, move my point over a particular revision
and do "S" to star-merge it, all of the missing revisions get merged
in, not only the one I was interested in. (It seems to be running "tla
star-merge category--branch--version" instead of "tla star-merge
category--branch--version--revision").
I think the piece of code causing this behaviour is:
(defun tla-revision-star-merge ()
"Run star-merge from the current location"
...
(if tla-buffer-archive-name
(tla-star-merge (tla-fully-qualified-revision
tla-buffer-archive-name
tla-buffer-category-name
tla-buffer-branch-name
tla-buffer-version-name) to-tree)
(let* ((elem (ewoc-data (ewoc-locate
tla-revision-list-cookie)))
(full (caddr elem)))
(tla-star-merge (apply 'tla-fully-qualified-revision
full)
to-tree)))
..)
That first arm of the IF is the one being entered. Does anyone know if
this behaviour is a bug or a feature? If it's a feature, what's the
normal way of only star-merging a particular revision?
Thanks!
Mark
--
Mark Triggs
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
