[debbugs-tracker] bug#35290: closed (27.0.50; Outdated vc-revert documentation)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Tue, 16 Apr 2019 18:28:22 +0300
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#35290: 27.0.50; Outdated vc-revert documentation
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #35290,
regarding 27.0.50; Outdated vc-revert documentation
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
35290: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=35290
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems

--- Begin Message --- Subject: 27.0.50; Outdated vc-revert documentation Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 12:54:45 -0300

In the same spirit as Bug#33084 [1], the documentation of vc-revert is
outdated.

1) C-h r
2) m VC Undo

Read this sentence:
Note that ‘C-x v u’ cannot be reversed with the usual undo commands
(see Undo), so use it with care.

To check it is outdated:
1) emacs -Q
2) C-x C-f FILE-UNDER-VERSION-CONTROL
3) Make some changes and then C-x C-s
4) Revert: C-x v u
5) Confirm: yes RET
6) After reverting is done, type C-/
7) Observe that you got your changes back.

[1]: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=33084

--- End Message ---

> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#35290: 27.0.50; Outdated vc-revert documentation
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Tue, 16 Apr 2019 18:28:22 +0300
>
>
>
>
> > From: Mauro Aranda <address@hidden>
> > Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 19:25:52 -0300
> > Cc: address@hidden
> > 
> > > Because the section is called "VC Undo", I guess.
> > 
> > OK.  But I fail to see a reason why a user, after reading the Undo
> > section, would expect that M-x undo acts upon anything that is not
> > buffer text.  That is what made me think (perhaps wrongly) that the
> > sentence is about the old behavior of revert-buffer.
> > 
> > At the least, I think the documentation could be improved.  Some of the
> > things vc-revert does can be reversed (e.g., bring back the reverted
> > changes in the affected buffers) and other changes cannot (or might not,
> > I'm not sure of the right wording here).  If that is correct, then both the
> > current text and my proposed patch fail to make that clear.
>
> OK, I simply removed that sentence from the manual.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> --- End Message ---