bug#62693: 28.2; VC: CVS: Fix lost file reporting and enable reverting it

[Olivier Certner]

Hi,

> I should have said "non-trivial".  Sorry for potentially confusing
> selection of words.

Non-trivial certainly, but not that complex either (and this thanks to the 
style used). And, as importantly, this is a component with very delimited and 
clear functionality and interface, making it simple to reason about from the 
outside (and this has not been changed by the patch) and see the impacts, 
especially with a single chain of callers.
 
> Dmitry asked whether it was okay to install this on the release
> branch, which is currently undergoing pretest.  So I looked at the
> changes from the POV of the potential for unintended consequences and
> regressions.  This job is much harder when the code is thoroughly
> rewritten, let alone uses a different macro system and style.  That is
> why I asked the question: I presume that if the changes were less
> radical, they could perhaps have been deemed appropriate for the
> release branch, or at least the chances for that were higher.

That I can perfectly understand, even if my take would probably be different. 
That said, I've re-read your mail and it really comes out very differently 
without such context. So at least thanks for providing it.
 
> You didn't have to.  That's not why I asked the question.

You didn't state the underpinnings, and were apparently adressing to me, not 
Dmitry, in the rest of the mail, so this is what I inferred for the first 
paragraph as well. Which then made me lose some time (and subsequently temper), 
and perhaps made you as well. Proper, transparent communication is key here.
 
> Not really, but that's a minor point.  We can always fix the
> terminology later.

So I guess this means that I'll leave it to you to possibly change names later. 
Given the previous miscommunication, let me explicitly invite you to manifest 
yourself if my guess is wrong and you are expecting something else from me on 
this topic.

Thanks.

-- 
Olivier Certner