From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#6385: A slightly less aggressive fit-window-to-buffer Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:00:59 +0200 Message-ID: <4C133EBB.5090702@gmx.at> References: <4C12383E.5030405@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1276331313 11630 80.91.229.12 (12 Jun 2010 08:28:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 08:28:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 6385@debbugs.gnu.org To: Lennart Borgman Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 12 10:28:31 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ONM4s-00016U-3S for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:28:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46337 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ONM4r-0000aH-GV for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 04:28:29 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=41731 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ONM4k-0000Yw-2p for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 04:28:24 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ONM4j-0001PF-29 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 04:28:21 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:40381) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ONM4j-0001P9-0r for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 04:28:21 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ONLfF-00072T-Lr; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 04:02:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 08:02:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6385 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 6385-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6385.127632966827045 (code B ref 6385); Sat, 12 Jun 2010 08:02:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6385) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jun 2010 08:01:08 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ONLeO-00072A-HM for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 04:01:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by debbugs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ONLeM-00071o-20 for 6385@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 04:01:07 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 12 Jun 2010 08:01:01 -0000 Original-Received: from 62-47-40-208.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.40.208]) [62.47.40.208] by mail.gmx.net (mp020) with SMTP; 12 Jun 2010 10:01:01 +0200 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/7YNRHgE/7tL5SXivHYVnAyQvm+q/QXtUXzegaDy pVlCy33iWiwp8g User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 04:02:01 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:37720 Archived-At: > What I saw was the even 2 lines high buffer made fit-window-to-buffer > delete sibling windows. All the time - but... I thought I knew how to > reproduce it. So I did not write any test procedures, I was just a bit > irritated. A mistake. [...] > This function killed all other siblings even if it just actually needs > two lines if certain conditions are met. (Those I tried to describe.) > > So this was just a desperate attempt to stop that. I do not know what > to do at the moment. I will try to reproduce this and look a bit > closer at it later. Deleting other windows when resizing was a misguided feature. I don't do that any more for quite some time and didn't miss it yet ;-) In any case, the issue whether a position is visible in a window is a priori not related to the issue whether resizing is allowed to delete any windows. You patch might handle a few cases, accidentally ... martin