GNU bug report logs - #19343
25.0.50; [vc-git] Unregistered file becomes `up-to-date' in vc-dir buffer after editing and saving

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 19343 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 19343 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 25.0.50;
 [vc-git] Unregistered file becomes `up-to-date' in vc-dir buffer
 after editing and saving
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 00:15:35 +0200

1. Open vc-dir for the repository with an unregistered file.

2. Open the file in Emacs, modify, save.

3. See it become `up-to-date' in the vc-dir buffer.

4. Switch to vc-dir, press `g'. See it become `unregistered' again.

Apparently, in part it's a result of how bug#11757 was resolved (see the
comment at the top of `vc-git-state'), but I don't remember seeing this
problem before Emacs 25. Yet I don't see anything specific among the
recent changes that caused it.

Maybe `vc-git-state' should call `git status --short' instead of `git
diff-index'.

In GNU Emacs 25.0.50.3 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.10.8)
 of 2014-12-10 on axl
Repository revision: bdc373bf456de464b44836b11826705c0aef70b1
Windowing system distributor `The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.11501000
System Description:	Ubuntu 14.04.1 LTS

Message #8 received at 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
To: 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#19343: 25.0.50;
 [vc-git] Unregistered file becomes `up-to-date' in vc-dir buffer
 after editing and saving
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:01:03 +0200

Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru> writes:

> but I don't remember seeing this problem before Emacs 25

Correction: it's also present in `emacs-24' and even 24.3.

So it's quite possible that the problem was introduced while fixing the
aforementioned bug.

Message #11 received at 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
To: 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#19343: 25.0.50;
 [vc-git] Unregistered file becomes `up-to-date' in vc-dir buffer
 after editing and saving
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 06:28:13 +0200

Looking though
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git/tree/Documentation/RelNotes,
'git status --short' was introduced in 1.7.0.

What's our minimum version?

Starting with 1.7.6.2, we can also use `git status --ignored', to list
files in all major states. This can help with an old FIXME in
`vc-git-state' about it never returning `ignored', and also radically
simplify (and speed up) `vc-git-dir-status-files'.

Message #14 received at 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
To: 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#19343: 25.0.50;
 [vc-git] Unregistered file becomes `up-to-date' in vc-dir buffer
 after editing and saving
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:19:27 +0200

> What's our minimum version?

Debian Stable has 1.7.10.4, but CentOS 6 - only 1.7.1.

So apparently we can use `status --short' (or rather --porcelain), but
--ignored is no-go for now.

Message #17 received at 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#19343: 25.0.50;
 [vc-git] Unregistered file becomes `up-to-date' in vc-dir
 buffer	after editing and saving
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 17:40:48 +0200

> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:19:27 +0200
> 
> > What's our minimum version?
> 
> Debian Stable has 1.7.10.4, but CentOS 6 - only 1.7.1.
> 
> So apparently we can use `status --short' (or rather --porcelain), but
> --ignored is no-go for now.

Why can't we use --ignored when it's available?  It doesn't feel right
to me to punish users of newer versions just because someone else out
there might not have such a version.

Message #20 received at 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#19343: 25.0.50;
 [vc-git] Unregistered file becomes `up-to-date'
 in vc-dir buffer	after editing and saving
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 19:11:03 +0200

On 12/17/2014 05:40 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> Why can't we use --ignored when it's available?  It doesn't feel right
> to me to punish users of newer versions just because someone else out
> there might not have such a version.

Sure we can, it's just more code complexity to support different code paths.

Considering there hasn't been many user complaints about either issue 
(vc-git-state never returns `ignored'; vc-git-dir-status-files is slower 
that it could be), maybe that's not worth it. Waiting a few years would 
be easier.

Message #23 received at 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#19343: 25.0.50;
 [vc-git] Unregistered file becomes `up-to-date' in vc-dir
 buffer	after editing and saving
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:15:07 +0200

> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 19:11:03 +0200
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
> CC: 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> On 12/17/2014 05:40 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > Why can't we use --ignored when it's available?  It doesn't feel right
> > to me to punish users of newer versions just because someone else out
> > there might not have such a version.
> 
> Sure we can, it's just more code complexity to support different code paths.
> 
> Considering there hasn't been many user complaints about either issue 
> (vc-git-state never returns `ignored'; vc-git-dir-status-files is slower 
> that it could be), maybe that's not worth it. Waiting a few years would 
> be easier.

It's up to you, I just wanted to raise the possibility.

Thanks.

Message #28 received at 19343-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 19343-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#19343: 25.0.50; [vc-git] Unregistered file becomes
 `up-to-date' in vc-dir buffer after editing and saving
Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 04:36:13 +0300

On 17.12.2014 17:40, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>>> What's our minimum version?
>>
>> Debian Stable has 1.7.10.4, but CentOS 6 - only 1.7.1.
>>
>> So apparently we can use `status --short' (or rather --porcelain), but
>> --ignored is no-go for now.
> 
> Why can't we use --ignored when it's available?  It doesn't feel right
> to me to punish users of newer versions just because someone else out
> there might not have such a version.

I've just pushed a patch (24301c8148f5f3220d7e597c73a59551cfa10eea) 
which fixes this bug, and also uses ---ignored, because that's how the 
Jonathan wrote it.

Do we still care about CentOS 6? The previous message in this discussion 
has been more than 2 years ago.

If so, we can remove --ignored from the call in vc-git-state, it's not 
hugely important there. It will be more important when we decide to 
reimplement vc-git-status-files in the same fashion, though.

Message #31 received at 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#19343: 25.0.50; [vc-git] Unregistered file becomes
 `up-to-date' in vc-dir buffer after editing and saving
Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 10:10:19 +0300

> Cc: 19343-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
> Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 04:36:13 +0300
> 
> > Why can't we use --ignored when it's available?  It doesn't feel right
> > to me to punish users of newer versions just because someone else out
> > there might not have such a version.
> 
> I've just pushed a patch (24301c8148f5f3220d7e597c73a59551cfa10eea) 
> which fixes this bug, and also uses ---ignored, because that's how the 
> Jonathan wrote it.

Thanks.

> Do we still care about CentOS 6?

I don't know.  According to my references, it will be maintained until
2021 at least, possibly as late as 2024.  If that's true, then yes, we
should care.

Message #34 received at 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#19343: 25.0.50; [vc-git] Unregistered file becomes
 `up-to-date' in vc-dir buffer after editing and saving
Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 18:00:52 +0300

On 01.05.2017 10:10, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> Do we still care about CentOS 6?
> 
> I don't know.  According to my references, it will be maintained until
> 2021 at least, possibly as late as 2024.  If that's true, then yes, we
> should care.

OK, thanks. I've removed the --ignored flag. Which brings back a related 
bug with ignored files.

Fortunately, ignored files are rarely displayed in vc-dir buffers, so 
it's less of a problem.

Message #37 received at 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#19343: 25.0.50; [vc-git] Unregistered file becomes
 `up-to-date' in vc-dir buffer after editing and saving
Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 18:14:44 +0300

> Cc: 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
> Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 18:00:52 +0300
> 
> On 01.05.2017 10:10, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> >> Do we still care about CentOS 6?
> > 
> > I don't know.  According to my references, it will be maintained until
> > 2021 at least, possibly as late as 2024.  If that's true, then yes, we
> > should care.
> 
> OK, thanks. I've removed the --ignored flag. Which brings back a related 
> bug with ignored files.

I don't think that's what I had in mind.  I thought about probing for
that flag once, then using it if it's available.

Message #40 received at 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#19343: 25.0.50; [vc-git] Unregistered file becomes
 `up-to-date' in vc-dir buffer after editing and saving
Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 19:55:03 +0300

On 01.05.2017 18:14, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> I don't think that's what I had in mind.  I thought about probing for
> that flag once, then using it if it's available.

Very well, I've added a version check.

Message #43 received at 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#19343: 25.0.50; [vc-git] Unregistered file becomes
 `up-to-date' in vc-dir buffer after editing and saving
Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 22:09:45 +0300

> Cc: 19343 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
> Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 19:55:03 +0300
> 
> On 01.05.2017 18:14, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > I don't think that's what I had in mind.  I thought about probing for
> > that flag once, then using it if it's available.
> 
> Very well, I've added a version check.

Great, thanks!

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.