From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#49261: 28.0.50; File Locking Breaks Presumptuous Toolchains Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 21:31:57 +0300 Message-ID: <837di9lwbm.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87o8bn7bie.fsf@gnus.org> <87zgv6vuon.fsf@gmx.de> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="2414"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: larsi@gnus.org, ncaprisunfan@gmail.com, 49261@debbugs.gnu.org To: Michael Albinus Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 01 20:33:58 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lz1Ve-0000Or-EI for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2021 20:33:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56134 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lz1Vc-0008VY-NK for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2021 14:33:56 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42038) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lz1Ul-0008V6-0Q for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2021 14:33:04 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:50376) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lz1Uk-0003ce-OB for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2021 14:33:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lz1Uk-00028H-Ek for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2021 14:33:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 18:33:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 49261 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 49261-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B49261.16251643318138 (code B ref 49261); Thu, 01 Jul 2021 18:33:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 49261) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Jul 2021 18:32:11 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33689 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lz1Tu-00027B-OG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2021 14:32:10 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:44014) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lz1Tt-00026y-BH for 49261@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2021 14:32:09 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:57996) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lz1Tm-000323-RB; Thu, 01 Jul 2021 14:32:03 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:3690 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lz1Tm-00017e-Eu; Thu, 01 Jul 2021 14:32:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87zgv6vuon.fsf@gmx.de> (message from Michael Albinus on Thu, 01 Jul 2021 18:57:12 +0200) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:209280 Archived-At: > From: Michael Albinus > Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 18:57:12 +0200 > Cc: Mallchad Skeghyeph , 49261@debbugs.gnu.org > > So the very recommended default lock file name shall be what we have > now. We could give the user a configuration variable to change this > behaviour, but with explicit warning about consequences. I think this was indeed the intent. There's no intent to change the default behavior wrt where the lock file is written, only to introduce a new opt-in behavior.