On Monday, May 24, 2004 at 21:30:28, Masatake YAMATO wrote: > > > > > If it's a feature, what's the normal way of only > > > > > star-merging a particular revision? > > > > > > > > Same question if we modify the behavior for what you > > > > expect. Then, "What's the normal way to star-merge all the > > > > revisions". > > > > > > > > I suggest : > > > > > > > > C-u S => Star-merge all revisions > > > > S => Star-merge only up to this revision > > > > > > Here is just my opinion about key binding in inventory buffer: > > > > > > - M for mirroring is not good. (?M for mirror is defined by > > > me:-) > > > > There is a patch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > in my archive where I consistently changed it in all places to "s" > > for sync with mirror. > > Key binding is one's precedence. But at least we need generic rules. > > My proposals are: > > 1. xtla-inventory should have similar key bindings to pcl-cvs.
It definitely will make it easier for pcl-cvs users, and most come from there ... this was on the list some time before :c) (IMHO there are really odd bindings in pcl-cvs). > 2. Define common prefix for command groups like '>'. We have to, its getting tight. Probably with an "> ?" binding for help on the group. > 3. Upper case for commands taking longer time to be executed. > 4. Lowwer case for commands taking shorter time to be executed. > 5. dired's binding is also helpful. Maybe we should: tla mv docs/BINDINGS xtla-bindings.el to have them all at one place (separate interface from implementation) and and remove all corresponding binding code from xtal.el! Do the cleanup there, as Mark suggested. We could also have xtla-bindings-intuitive.el and xtla-pcl-cvs-bindings.el. Users preferring their own binding my simply copy and hack the file. Cheers Robert
