On 17 Dec 2001, Adrian Aichner wrote:
>>>>> "SY" == Steve Youngs
SY> |--==> "n" == nbecker <nbecker(a)fred.net> writes:
>>>>>>> "SY" == Steve Youngs <youngs(a)xemacs.org>
n> I marked a bunch of files in pcl-cvs mode. Then I chose "undo
n> changes" from the menu. It prompts "Delete 8 files?". Rather
SY> Actually, this is correct behaviour. The menu item "undo changes"
SY> runs 'cvs-mode-undo', that function undoes all the local changes to
SY> the marked files in the PCL-CVS buffer. It does it by deleting the
SY> local file and then runs 'cvs update FILE'.
n> It may be literally correct, but I was surprised and confused by this
n> question. I wasn't quite sure whether it was doing just what you
n> describe, or whether it had gone insane and was offering to delete 8
n> files at random. IIRC, it didn't tell me which 8 files it wanted to
n> delete, which didn't help either.
SY> Do you think it would be better and less confusing if you were
SY> prompted with something like "Delete local copy of marked
SY> files and re check them out of CVS?"? Or words to that
I hate the current behavior for the reasons given above.
It does not provide any information about the files affected.
What about make it look similar to when committing, except the message
entering part. After entering a message and hit C-c C-c a small buffer
called *cvs-edit-files* comes up with a list of the files affected and you
are prompted "Really commit? (y or n)", similarly cvs-mode-undo could come
up with a *cvs-edit-files* buffer listing the files affected, and ask
something like "Really undo ? (y or n)" or "Really revert from CVS? (y or
n)" I suggest *not* to use "Really delete ? (y or n)" for reasons given
In both cases the prompt could be improoved to contain the number of
files, such as "Really commit 8 files (y or n)?".
I think completion buffer feedback, along the lines of what
d runs the command dired-flag-file-deletion
x runs the command dired-expunge-deletions
do, would be much better.
I am not sure I get you right, I guess you want behaviour similar to
deletion of files (in `dired') and buffers (in `list-buffers').
I don't think it's a good idea to think of the cvs-mode-undo as a
*deletion*, because the files are still there after a cvs-mode-undo the
content has just changed. I know that the effect is delete-then-update,
but from a users point of view I think it more looks like an undo or a
and "yes" PCL-CVS is great!