Is undo-tree dependency strictly necessary

[Frank Fischer]

Am Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:53:10 -0600
schrieb Leo Alekseyev <dnquark at gmail.com>:

> I was wondering if undo-tree is only there to match Vim behavior, and
> if I could use Evil without it.  I actually find built-in Emacs undo
> functionality intuitive and I'm used to how it operates.  On the other
> hand, I've run into some cases where undo-tree didn't behave as
> expected.  If there are no ill consequences in using original Emacs
> undo vs undo-tree, it would be nice if it were configurable.

Undo tree is completely optional, but if undo tree is available and
already loaded, the undo command "u" is mapped to the undo function of
the undo-tree package. If you install evil via el-get undo tree will be
loaded automatically. But you can get the old behavior by remapping "u"
do the standard undo function:

(define-key evil-normal-state-map "u" 'undo)

and if you have the redo.el or redo+.el package

(define-key evil-normal-state-map (kbd "C-r") 'redo)

Frank

PS: just grep the sources for "undo-tree" and you will see that evil
guards everying with something like (when (fboundp
'undo-tree-undo) ...) overriding the default bindings if the undo-tree
equivalents are available. But you can easily "undo" these changes to
undo ;)