Re: On the adoption of transient.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk>
> Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2021 11:37:03 +0100
> 
> On Thursday,  5 Aug 2021 at 19:23, Tim Cross wrote:
> > I'm not sure how easily you could do a git interface based around
> > dired-style UI design which provides much more than the vc-* interface
> > already provides. 
> 
> Yes, that's probably the case.  I use vc for most of the simple
> activities (diffs, simple commits, viewing the log, pushing/fetching)
> but fall back to magit for selective commits and branching.

I'm not sure we've used up the potential of "C-x v v" for Git.  It
currently doesn't even fully support the simplest workflow with Git,
only going as far as making a local commit.  (I tried to suggest a
better "next action" heuristics some moons ago, but couldn't get the
involved parties to agree.)  If and when we have the basic Git
workflow covered, we could perhaps try implementing some less frequent
variants using some combination of heuristics and prompting the user.

FWIW, when I need to do something with Git that I do rarely and
therefore don't really remember how it's done, I just search the
Internet.  There's so much stuff there about every single Git command
and Git-related issue that I usually find the answer in a few seconds.
IME, the Git man pages are worthless unless you know exactly which
command you want to use, so I almost never use the docs which come
with Git.

I'd be interested to see a demonstration of how Magit makes doing some
fancy Git job without searching the Internet for solutions.  But
please take some really exotic job, not something semi-trivial.

> I do use other version control systems (especially SRC for single file
> "projects") and so having the same key bindings regardless of VCS is
> ideal for reducing friction.  This is where vc wins.

Yes, and I think it could win more than it does now.  In general, the
adaptation of VC to modern VCSes is IMO incomplete, and we could do
much better.