Is undo-tree dependency strictly necessary

Sat Jan 14 00:51:48 CET 2012

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:02 AM, Frank Fischer
<frank.fischer at mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de> wrote:
> 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)

Actually, that doesn't work, because undo-tree remaps the undo
command, not just the undo keys.  The solution seems to be simply to
move undo-tree.el out of the way so that it doesn't load on (require
'undo-tree).