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#46397: 27.1; Cannot delete buffer pointing to a file in a path that includes a file Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2021 18:59:21 +0200 Message-ID: <837dmq95ee.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83sg5r276b.fsf@gnu.org> <838s7j14xc.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="15054"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 46397@debbugs.gnu.org, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, craven@gmx.net To: Matt Armstrong Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 01 18:00:45 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 1lGluX-0003nd-F0 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2021 18:00:45 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57058 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lGluW-0002vW-CR for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2021 12:00:44 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57822) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lGltq-0002ji-Ox for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2021 12:00:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:39092) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lGltq-0001zI-DF for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2021 12:00:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lGltq-0007FR-9e for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2021 12:00:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2021 17:00:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 46397 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 46397-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B46397.161461798027805 (code B ref 46397); Mon, 01 Mar 2021 17:00:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 46397) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Mar 2021 16:59:40 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50638 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lGltT-0007EP-N4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2021 11:59:39 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39786) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lGltS-0007EC-04 for 46397@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2021 11:59:38 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:49130) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lGltJ-0001jE-AK; Mon, 01 Mar 2021 11:59:31 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:2338 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lGltF-00021x-Ny; Mon, 01 Mar 2021 11:59:26 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Matt Armstrong on Wed, 24 Feb 2021 09:37:49 -0800) 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:201127 Archived-At: > From: Matt Armstrong > Cc: 46397@debbugs.gnu.org, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, craven@gmx.net > Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 09:37:49 -0800 > > I still like my original idea of calling display-warning for all unlock > errors, essentially turning "unlock" into a best effort function at the > API level. I think display-warning is intrusive enough that users are > unlikely to simply not notice the problem, and there are worse things > than leaving lock files around. OK, you've convinced me: let's try the warning approach. Can you present a patch for that, please? As for the tests you posted: too many of them rely on Posix file modes, and thus will probably either fail or be unable to provide meaningful testing on MS-Windows. Can we please augment that by tests that create unlocking problems by, e.g., running a shell command to remove or rename or otherwise sabotage the lock file, so that the new functionality could be meaningfully tested on Windows as well?