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#43412: [FEATURE] autorevert-only-if-visible [PATCH] Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 18:49:53 +0300 Message-ID: <83imcf82fy.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20200915040728.77ufv7g6bekvrzqa@E15-2016.optimum.net> <83y2lb8648.fsf@gnu.org> <20200915153958.e2nry7dxl3pmu3k6@E15-2016.optimum.net> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="31686"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 43412@debbugs.gnu.org To: Boruch Baum Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 15 17:51:10 2020 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 1kIDEc-00085v-Jv for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 17:51:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47678 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kIDEb-00014K-F5 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:51:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51884) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kIDEU-00012R-9M for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:51:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:48800) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kIDET-0006wR-W6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:51:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kIDET-0006Ez-Ua for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:51:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:51:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 43412 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 43412-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B43412.160018500223911 (code B ref 43412); Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:51:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 43412) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Sep 2020 15:50:02 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60346 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kIDDW-0006Da-Cj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:50:02 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:44650) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kIDDV-0006D2-2r for 43412@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:50:01 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:47909) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kIDDO-0006Yp-2k; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:49:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2138 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kIDDH-0005wK-BT; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:49:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20200915153958.e2nry7dxl3pmu3k6@E15-2016.optimum.net> (message from Boruch Baum on Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:39:58 -0400) 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:188133 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:39:58 -0400 > From: Boruch Baum > Cc: 43412@debbugs.gnu.org > > Off-topic: would anything constructive result if I submit a separate > 'complaint' about that behavior / judgment / decision that 'Such > frames are always considered visible'? That's why I said "visible" is ambiguous. "Frame visibility" is a concept in Emacs, so changing it now, and for TTY displays on top of that, is next to unimaginable, IMO. > > Btw, what will be the effect of this option? Suppose some buffer was > > not displayed and missed its auto-revert opportunity. Then I switch > > to it in some window -- will it appear with stale contents, or will it > > auto-revert before being displayed in the window? > > I kind of mentioned this in my note: From my testing, at the instant an > un-reverted buffer is displayed, it is in its 'stale' state but is also > instantly considered for auto-revert. Maybe we should arrange it to actually auto-revert before being displayed. I envision bug reports if we don't.