darcs

Patch 1009 Resolve issue2155: Expurgate the non-functional annota...

Title Resolve issue2155: Expurgate the non-functional annota...
Superseder Nosy List fx, ganesh
Related Issues
Status accepted Assigned To ganesh
Milestone

Created on 2013-01-13.15:54:10 by fx, last changed 2013-02-14.15:49:53 by gh.

Files
File name Status Uploaded Type Edit Remove
patch-preview.txt fx, 2013-01-13.15:54:09 text/x-darcs-patch
resolve-issue2155_-expurgate-the-non_functional-annotate-__xml_output-option.dpatch fx, 2013-01-13.15:54:10 application/x-darcs-patch
unnamed fx, 2013-01-13.15:54:10
See mailing list archives for discussion on individual patches.
Messages
msg16530 (view) Author: fx Date: 2013-01-13.15:54:10
1 patch for repository http://darcs.net/reviewed:

This at least allows tools to check for the option and makes it more
obvious if they try to use it.  It should go on the 2.8 branch if that's
still active.

Sun Jan 13 15:45:49 GMT 2013  Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
  * Resolve issue2155: Expurgate the non-functional annotate --xml-output option
Attachments
msg16542 (view) Author: ganesh Date: 2013-01-20.14:01:37
Thanks for the fix.

We've got 2.8.4 about to go out but I'm not sure it's worth changing the 
behaviour there, given that there's a simple workaround of not using the 
option.
msg16553 (view) Author: fx Date: 2013-01-24.19:04:51
Ganesh Sittampalam <bugs@darcs.net> writes:

> We've got 2.8.4 about to go out but I'm not sure it's worth changing the 
> behaviour there, given that there's a simple workaround of not using the 
> option.

I'm not sure "workaround" is the right term if you have a tool that uses
it and can't even test for whether it's present.  Could you at least add
a NEWS item about it having been removed?
msg16554 (view) Author: ganesh Date: 2013-01-24.20:11:05
On 24/01/2013 19:04, Dave Love wrote:
> Ganesh Sittampalam <bugs@darcs.net> writes:
> 
>> We've got 2.8.4 about to go out but I'm not sure it's worth changing the 
>> behaviour there, given that there's a simple workaround of not using the 
>> option.
> 
> I'm not sure "workaround" is the right term if you have a tool that uses
> it and can't even test for whether it's present.  Could you at least add
> a NEWS item about it having been removed?

Ah, so the problem is that you want a tool to work with both older
versions and newer versions? OK, I guess it makes sense to put in 2.8
for that.

Ganesh
msg16556 (view) Author: fx Date: 2013-01-25.17:17:07
Ganesh Sittampalam <ganesh@earth.li> writes:

> Ah, so the problem is that you want a tool to work with both older
> versions and newer versions?

Yes, or future versions that might change the facilities again, like
re-instating XML.

It was actually used by trac+darcs, and I was prompted to send the patch
when Lele tripped over it.  For Emacs VC mode I found it better to deal
with the "human readable" output and figure out what form that has (not
for the first time when XML was an option for tool output...), but it's
all a bit fragile.

> OK, I guess it makes sense to put in 2.8
> for that.
msg16575 (view) Author: gh Date: 2013-02-14.15:49:53
Good to go, sort of already reviewed since it's in 2.8.4.
History
Date User Action Args
2013-01-13 15:54:10fxcreate
2013-01-20 14:01:37ganeshsetassignedto: ganesh
messages: + msg16542
nosy: + ganesh
2013-01-24 19:04:51fxsetmessages: + msg16553
2013-01-24 20:11:05ganeshsetmessages: + msg16554
2013-01-25 17:17:08fxsetmessages: + msg16556
2013-02-14 15:49:53ghsetstatus: needs-screening -> accepted
messages: + msg16575