Refuse to revert a file if it is modified in an existing buffer but

not saved. On success, revert the buffers that contains the files that

have been reverted.
Signed-off-by: Alexandre Julliard <julliard@winehq.org>

---

 contrib/emacs/git.el |    8 ++++++++

 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/contrib/emacs/git.el b/contrib/emacs/git.el

index 5519ed1..e1058b9 100644

--- a/contrib/emacs/git.el

+++ b/contrib/emacs/git.el

@@ -1033,11 +1033,19 @@ Return the list of files that haven't been handled."

           ('deleted (push (git-fileinfo->name info) modified))

           ('unmerged (push (git-fileinfo->name info) modified))

           ('modified (push (git-fileinfo->name info) modified))))

+      ;; check if a buffer contains one of the files and isn't saved

+      (dolist (file (append added modified))

+        (let ((buffer (get-file-buffer file)))

+          (when (and buffer (buffer-modified-p buffer))

+            (error "Buffer %s is modified. Please kill or save modified buffers before reverting." (buffer-name buffer)))))

       (when added

         (apply #'git-call-process-env nil nil "update-index" "--force-remove" "--" added))

       (when modified

         (apply #'git-call-process-env nil nil "checkout" "HEAD" modified))

       (git-update-status-files (append added modified) 'uptodate)

+      (dolist (file (append added modified))

+        (let ((buffer (get-file-buffer file)))

+          (when buffer (with-current-buffer buffer (revert-buffer t t t)))))

       (git-success-message "Reverted" (git-get-filenames files)))))
 (defun git-resolve-file ()

--

1.5.4.38.g0d380
--

Alexandre Julliard

julliard@winehq.org

-

What's the point? What if I do want to have modified buffer and still

revert the on-disk file? Why git-revert cares to the level of

prohibiting this?
Besides, it's inconsistent with the rest of Emacs, I think, as in

similar situations Emacs usually allows to either save the buffer(s), do

not save the buffer(s) and continue, or abort operation (I suppose using

(save-some-buffers) call, though I didn't check). See, for example, how

(compile) behaves when some of buffers are not saved.
In fact I believe the way PCL-CVS handles this, and that was implemented

in my earlier patch, is superior compared to this patch. An addition of

save-some-buffers call won't hurt either, but IMHO is not very useful in

the specific case of git-revert.
BTW, what definitely lacks (save-some-buffers) call is git-commit, as it

silently commits on-disk state of a file when corresponding buffer is
This part is indeed very handy.
-- Sergei Organov.

-

It's modeled on the vc-revert behavior, but yes, it could also prompt

whether to discard changes; prompting to save doesn't make sense if you

are about to throw away the changes. I think reverting the file on disk

without changing the buffer is confusing: either you want to discard the

changes, and you want to discard the buffer changes too, or you want to

keep your changes, and reverting the file on disk doesn't make sense
This could certainly be done, though it would have to be smarter than

a simple (save-some-buffers), I find it very annoying when compile

prompts to save a bunch of unrelated files.
--

Alexandre Julliard

julliard@winehq.org

-

Yes, and I think that prompting makes more sense at the time we try to

actually revert buffer from disk. Besides this allows to eliminate the

first check for modified buffers altogether.
And I'd put this (revert some buffers with prompt) into a separate

function as I foresee a need for such a function when, say,

git-checkout, or any other command that changes working files will be
I think that prompting is the best solution. It won't be a frequent

situation, so prompting won't be annoying. Though this will differ both

from VC and PCVS behavior.
BTW, there is another related issue: what to do with buffers for which their

files disappear (are removed). AFAIK PCVS doesn't close such buffers,
[And so do I, but unlike git-commit, compile has no clue of what files

are relevant (though it does lack a method to ignore buffers by, say,

regexp of buffer name).]
I agree git-commit could be made smarter. Fortunately, save-some-buffers

has /pred/ argument that allows for arbitrary filtering of buffers to be

considered.
-- Sergei.

-

Please don't revert such buffers! More than once have I been saved from

a blunder by the fact that Emacs still had a copy of the accidentally

erase/overwritten file. The normal Emacs behaviour is to prompt upon

editing whether to edit the buffer since the file has changed.
Thanks

Tommy
-