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, 15 Feb 2021 17:09:48 +0200 Message-ID: <83wnv99xkz.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87h7mllgin.fsf@nexoid.at> <83a6scj745.fsf@gnu.org> <39d0e035-27b6-e2bd-daa2-747dda2c1a35@cs.ucla.edu> <83tuqhg3j9.fsf@gnu.org> <83czx4e5h5.fsf@gnu.org> <83zh06a1yv.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="11907"; 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 Feb 15 16:12:40 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 1lBfYG-0002zp-5J for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 16:12:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35370 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lBfYF-0000kX-55 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 10:12:39 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57800) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lBfVi-0005jE-TY for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 10:10:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:55167) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lBfVi-0004Cv-MH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 10:10:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lBfVi-0002tn-HK for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 10:10:02 -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, 15 Feb 2021 15:10:02 +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=B46397.161340179711127 (code B ref 46397); Mon, 15 Feb 2021 15:10:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 46397) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Feb 2021 15:09:57 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38480 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lBfVd-0002tP-46 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 10:09:57 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39858) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lBfVX-0002t9-JK for 46397@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 10:09:56 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:58749) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lBfVS-000451-Ds; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 10:09:46 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:3810 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lBfVR-0007Cz-Mm; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 10:09:46 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Matt Armstrong on Sun, 14 Feb 2021 14:16:12 -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:200062 Archived-At: > From: Matt Armstrong > Cc: 46397@debbugs.gnu.org, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, craven@gmx.net > Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2021 14:16:12 -0800 > > When releasing the lock, I have a less clear opinion but I'm thinking > that warnings are better. A warning is still quite intrusive and > obvious. Maybe we don't need to decide this part now. The problem with warnings is that they can go unnoticed, unless followed by sit-for.