Re: Dependency on tex-buf.el

[David Kastrup]

Ikumi Keita <ikumi@ikumi.que.jp> writes:

> If AUCTeX is to keep it,
> (D) We should remove "(require 'tex-buf)" from at least plain-tex.el,
>     context.el, tex-bar.el and tex-jp.el, adding some defvar's and
>     declare-function's (or autoload's if necessary).
> (E; optional?) It's reasonable that preview.el has "(require 'tex-buf)"
>     considering its nature; but maybe we should consider replacing it
>     with suitable autoload's (adding some defvar's).
> (F; optional?) Move entire "Viewing" section from tex.el to tex-buf.el.
>
> My preference is to keep the "separate dependency policy" and do (D) and
> (E). Doing (F) is too drastic a change and the commit history of
> "Viewing" section is valuable, which doesn't seem good to lose.
>
> What do you think about it?

As a note aside: we are using Git as version control system these days.
Git doesn't maintain change histories in the first place but computes
them on the fly when calling "git blame" or similar.  It has various
options on how thoroughly it will track content moving across files.
"Losing" commit history is quite harder than you make it appear here.
So that particular point should not really be a consideration.

-- 
David Kastrup