[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Emacs-diffs] master 7d21105: Update the git backend's header comment.
From: |
Eric S. Raymond |
Subject: |
[Emacs-diffs] master 7d21105: Update the git backend's header comment. |
Date: |
Tue, 02 Dec 2014 01:00:49 +0000 |
branch: master
commit 7d2110560e17744d8a1969b1a3df6040f7e90440
Author: Eric S. Raymond <address@hidden>
Commit: Eric S. Raymond <address@hidden>
Update the git backend's header comment.
---
lisp/vc/vc-git.el | 6 ++++--
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lisp/vc/vc-git.el b/lisp/vc/vc-git.el
index 93a129c..93c5ff8 100644
--- a/lisp/vc/vc-git.el
+++ b/lisp/vc/vc-git.el
@@ -50,6 +50,8 @@
;; STATE-QUERYING FUNCTIONS
;; * registered (file) OK
;; * state (file) OK
+;; * dir-status (dir update-function) OK
+;; - dir-status-files (dir files ds uf) NOT NEEDED
;; * working-revision (file) OK
;; - latest-on-branch-p (file) NOT NEEDED
;; * checkout-model (files) OK
@@ -65,13 +67,13 @@
;; * checkout (file &optional rev) OK
;; * revert (file &optional contents-done) OK
;; - rollback (files) COULD BE SUPPORTED
-;; - merge (file rev1 rev2) It would be possible to merge
+;; - merge-file (file rev1 rev2) It would be possible to merge
;; changes into a single file, but
;; when committing they wouldn't
;; be identified as a merge
;; by git, so it's probably
;; not a good idea.
-;; - merge-news (file) see `merge'
+;; - merge-news (file) see `merge-file'
;; - steal-lock (file &optional revision) NOT NEEDED
;; HISTORY FUNCTIONS
;; * print-log (files buffer &optional shortlog start-revision limit) OK
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [Emacs-diffs] master 7d21105: Update the git backend's header comment.,
Eric S. Raymond <=