Re: Introducing 'unrecognized and 'ignored

[Stefan Monnier]

>> > Then the problem of speeding up vc-dired-hook will reduce to a simpler
>> > one -- how to make the individual directory-status commands in each
>> > VCS return information for as many files as possible? Ideally, we want
>> > them to return status on *all* files beneath the current directory.
>> 
>> I disagree.  VC should not do any tree traversal itself.

> There's no way to avoid this.

Of course there is.

> We have a choice between two different sets of circumstances under
> which tree traversal will be needed:

> 1) We can take svn and later systems as a model.  Their status commands
> recurse naturally, so none of those backend status commands has to traverse 
> trees itself.  If we do this, the CVS and MCVS backend status commands have
> to do tree traversal to match the behavior of the SVN and later ones.

I don't understand: CVS's status command recurses just fine and so does
MetaCVS's (not that it matters since this backend can be dropped any day
AFAICT).

The only backends which might need to do tree traversal manually (AFAIK)
are RCS and SCCS, of course, but I think it's fine for them to do the
traversal by hand in the backend code.

> Right now VC is doing the first alternative.

Maybe we're not talking about the same "tree traversal".  But AFAICT,
vc-dired uses `ls' somewhere, where I think it should neither use `ls'
nor `directory-files' nor anything equivalent in the generic code.
That would also allow us to get rid of vc-directory-exclusion-list.


        Stefan