* bug#56311: [PATCH] new function: delete-visited-file @ 2022-06-30 4:26 Zachary Kanfer 2022-06-30 5:30 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Zachary Kanfer @ 2022-06-30 4:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 56311 [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 415 bytes --] When I delete a file, I almost always want the buffer visiting it to go away also. Why keep it around? So I have to do the following steps: 1. M-x delete-file 2. navigate to the file, select it. 3. C-x k <ret> So I wrote a function to delete the file a buffer is visiting, and close the buffer. Now I do everything in a single logical action: 1. M-x delete-visited-file 2. select the buffer. Patch is attached. [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 513 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: 0001-Add-new-function-delete-visited-file.patch --] [-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 2336 bytes --] From 7ce913013a022ec84b11f3abc22bc82e06825f1e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Zachary Kanfer <zkanfer@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 00:21:01 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Add new function delete-visited-file. * lisp/files.el (delete-visited-file) New command * doc/emacs/files.texi (Miscellaneous File Operations): Document it. --- doc/emacs/files.texi | 2 ++ etc/NEWS | 5 +++++ lisp/files.el | 11 +++++++++++ 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+) diff --git a/doc/emacs/files.texi b/doc/emacs/files.texi index fa02d264f9..4bfda182b4 100644 --- a/doc/emacs/files.texi +++ b/doc/emacs/files.texi @@ -1930,6 +1930,8 @@ Misc File Ops execution permission for the user who owns the file. It has no effect on operating systems that do not support file modes. @code{chmod} is a convenience alias for this function. +@findex delete-visited-file + @kbd{delete-visited-file} deletes the file visited by a buffer, and closes the buffer. @node Compressed Files @section Accessing Compressed Files diff --git a/etc/NEWS b/etc/NEWS index ce32542028..b5524d35fd 100644 --- a/etc/NEWS +++ b/etc/NEWS @@ -355,6 +355,11 @@ match those regexps will be ignored by 'switch-to-prev-buffer' and This command renames the file visited by the current buffer by moving it to a new location, and also makes the buffer visit this new file. ++++ +** New command 'delete-visited-file'. +This command deletes the file visited by a buffer, then closes the +buffer. + ** Menus --- diff --git a/lisp/files.el b/lisp/files.el index 1295c24c93..f5d512d6be 100644 --- a/lisp/files.el +++ b/lisp/files.el @@ -6267,6 +6267,17 @@ delete-directory directory-exists)) (files--force recursive #'delete-directory-internal directory)))))) +(defun delete-visited-file (buffer-name) + "Delete the file visited by buffer BUFFER-NAME, then close the buffer." + (interactive "bDelete file visited by buffer ") + (let* ((buffer (get-buffer buffer-name)) + (filename (buffer-file-name buffer))) + (when buffer + (when (and filename + (file-exists-p filename)) + (delete-file filename)) + (kill-buffer buffer)))) + (defun file-equal-p (file1 file2) "Return non-nil if files FILE1 and FILE2 name the same file. If FILE1 or FILE2 does not exist, the return value is unspecified." -- 2.25.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* bug#56311: [PATCH] new function: delete-visited-file 2022-06-30 4:26 bug#56311: [PATCH] new function: delete-visited-file Zachary Kanfer @ 2022-06-30 5:30 ` Eli Zaretskii 2022-06-30 5:49 ` Sean Whitton 2022-06-30 6:20 ` Visuwesh 0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2022-06-30 5:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zachary Kanfer; +Cc: 56311 > From: Zachary Kanfer <zkanfer@gmail.com> > Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 00:26:06 -0400 > > +** New command 'delete-visited-file'. > +This command deletes the file visited by a buffer, then closes the > +buffer. "Close the buffer" is not our terminology, you won't find it in our documentation. We say "kill the buffer". I also think "delete-visited-file" is not the best name for the command, since it doesn't tell all the truth about what it does. Apart of that, I have no opinion about this proposal, although each time I see suggestions for features to kill unused buffers or see people who are worried about such buffers, I raise a brow: in Emacs, we generally don't care about that (because it does no harm to have unused buffers), and if someone's usage patterns are such that they tend to create _gobs_ of large buffers most of which quickly become unused, there's midnight.el to take care of that. But if the ultimate decision is to add this command, please keep it out of files.el, because that's a preloaded package, and thus it will increase the memory footprint of every Emacs session for the benefit of a command that I don't think is important enough. Thanks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* bug#56311: [PATCH] new function: delete-visited-file 2022-06-30 5:30 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2022-06-30 5:49 ` Sean Whitton 2022-06-30 5:56 ` Eli Zaretskii 2022-06-30 6:20 ` Visuwesh 1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Sean Whitton @ 2022-06-30 5:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii, Zachary Kanfer; +Cc: 56311 Hello, On Thu 30 Jun 2022 at 08:30am +03, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Zachary Kanfer <zkanfer@gmail.com> >> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 00:26:06 -0400 >> >> +** New command 'delete-visited-file'. >> +This command deletes the file visited by a buffer, then closes the >> +buffer. > > "Close the buffer" is not our terminology, you won't find it in our > documentation. We say "kill the buffer". > > I also think "delete-visited-file" is not the best name for the > command, since it doesn't tell all the truth about what it does. > > Apart of that, I have no opinion about this proposal, although each > time I see suggestions for features to kill unused buffers or see > people who are worried about such buffers, I raise a brow: in Emacs, > we generally don't care about that (because it does no harm to have > unused buffers), and if someone's usage patterns are such that they > tend to create _gobs_ of large buffers most of which quickly become > unused, there's midnight.el to take care of that. I don't care about the buffer being killed either, but there isn't currently a quick way to delete the file the selected buffer is visiting, you have to type/complete its name. It would be nice to have that, which I think this command provides. -- Sean Whitton ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* bug#56311: [PATCH] new function: delete-visited-file 2022-06-30 5:49 ` Sean Whitton @ 2022-06-30 5:56 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2022-06-30 5:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sean Whitton; +Cc: zkanfer, 56311 > From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> > Cc: 56311@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 22:49:47 -0700 > > I don't care about the buffer being killed either, but there isn't > currently a quick way to delete the file the selected buffer is > visiting, you have to type/complete its name. No, you don't: M-x delete-file RET M-n RET ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* bug#56311: [PATCH] new function: delete-visited-file 2022-06-30 5:30 ` Eli Zaretskii 2022-06-30 5:49 ` Sean Whitton @ 2022-06-30 6:20 ` Visuwesh 2022-06-30 10:27 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Visuwesh @ 2022-06-30 6:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: Zachary Kanfer, 56311 [வியாழன் ஜூன் 30, 2022] Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Apart of that, I have no opinion about this proposal, although each > time I see suggestions for features to kill unused buffers or see > people who are worried about such buffers, I raise a brow: in Emacs, > we generally don't care about that (because it does no harm to have > unused buffers), and if someone's usage patterns are such that they > tend to create _gobs_ of large buffers most of which quickly become > unused, there's midnight.el to take care of that. FWIW, the fact that Emacs leaves the buffer around has saved my back at least twice, . when I accidentally deleted the wrong files in dired due to stale marks. . when I tried to fix a broken symlink but got the argument order in ln wrong and had the real file "zeroed". ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* bug#56311: [PATCH] new function: delete-visited-file 2022-06-30 6:20 ` Visuwesh @ 2022-06-30 10:27 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen 2022-06-30 16:29 ` Sean Whitton 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Lars Ingebrigtsen @ 2022-06-30 10:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Visuwesh; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, Zachary Kanfer, 56311 Visuwesh <visuweshm@gmail.com> writes: > FWIW, the fact that Emacs leaves the buffer around has saved my back at > least twice, > > . when I accidentally deleted the wrong files in dired due to > stale marks. > . when I tried to fix a broken symlink but got the argument order in > ln wrong and had the real file "zeroed". And since deleting the visited file is currently very easy, as Eli pointed out: M-x delete-file RET M-n RET I don't think this would be a command that people would use a lot. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* bug#56311: [PATCH] new function: delete-visited-file 2022-06-30 10:27 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen @ 2022-06-30 16:29 ` Sean Whitton 2022-07-01 3:29 ` Zachary Kanfer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Sean Whitton @ 2022-06-30 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Lars Ingebrigtsen, Visuwesh; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, Zachary Kanfer, 56311 Hello, On Thu 30 Jun 2022 at 12:27pm +02, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote: > And since deleting the visited file is currently very easy, as Eli > pointed out: > > M-x delete-file RET M-n RET There's also C-x C-j D. > I don't think this would be a command that people would use a lot. They shouldn't be using it a lot, and I agree that it probably shouldn't be added, but it does seem worth noting that a lot of users have something like this in their init, and use it a lot. I did until today, and used it almost daily. (After reading this thread, I've replaced it with something calling bury-buffer.) It's also to be found in Spacemacs and Doom Emacs. -- Sean Whitton ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* bug#56311: [PATCH] new function: delete-visited-file 2022-06-30 16:29 ` Sean Whitton @ 2022-07-01 3:29 ` Zachary Kanfer 2022-07-01 5:57 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Zachary Kanfer @ 2022-07-01 3:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sean Whitton; +Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen, Eli Zaretskii, 56311, Visuwesh [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2002 bytes --] It's interesting to see commentary about how one shouldn't want to kill buffers. There is a lot of functionality revolving around killing buffers. > ...each time I see suggestions for features to kill unused buffers or > see people who are worried about such buffers, I raise a brow: in > Emacs, we generally don't care about that (because it does no harm to > have unused buffers)... I use desktop-mode. So I currently have 267 buffers open in my Emacs. Perhaps you might think I'm "doing it wrong", but I find that the more buffers I have open, the longer it takes to find a given buffer. The more open buffers I have open, the greater the chance I'll accidently switch to the wrong one. Sometimes I know that I want a file to go away -- why keep the buffer around? > And since deleting the visited file is currently very easy, as Eli > pointed out: > > > M-x delete-file RET M-n RET > > I don't think this would be a command that people would use a lot. Personally, I never want to delete a file and keep the buffer around. So I have replaced *all* my usages of `delete-file` with this new one. There are many ways to work with Emacs -- many workflows I don't know why this one is considered wrong. On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 12:29 PM Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu 30 Jun 2022 at 12:27pm +02, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote: > > > And since deleting the visited file is currently very easy, as Eli > > pointed out: > > > > M-x delete-file RET M-n RET > > There's also C-x C-j D. > > > I don't think this would be a command that people would use a lot. > > They shouldn't be using it a lot, and I agree that it probably shouldn't > be added, but it does seem worth noting that a lot of users have > something like this in their init, and use it a lot. I did until today, > and used it almost daily. (After reading this thread, I've replaced it > with something calling bury-buffer.) It's also to be found in Spacemacs > and Doom Emacs. > > -- > Sean Whitton > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2531 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* bug#56311: [PATCH] new function: delete-visited-file 2022-07-01 3:29 ` Zachary Kanfer @ 2022-07-01 5:57 ` Eli Zaretskii 2022-07-03 5:06 ` Zachary Kanfer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2022-07-01 5:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zachary Kanfer; +Cc: larsi, visuweshm, 56311, spwhitton > From: Zachary Kanfer <zkanfer@gmail.com> > Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 23:29:36 -0400 > Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>, Visuwesh <visuweshm@gmail.com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, > 56311@debbugs.gnu.org > > It's interesting to see commentary about how one shouldn't want to kill buffers. There is a lot of functionality > revolving around killing buffers. Examples of such functionality? I'm not sure I understand what you have in mind here. > > ...each time I see suggestions for features to kill unused buffers or > > see people who are worried about such buffers, I raise a brow: in > > Emacs, we generally don't care about that (because it does no harm to > > have unused buffers)... > > I use desktop-mode. So I currently have 267 buffers open in my Emacs. Perhaps you might think I'm "doing > it wrong", Why would I think so? In the session in which I'm writing this, I have 287 buffers. Having around 300 buffers in my sessions is quite normal, and I don't consider such numbers excessive. > I find that the more buffers I have open, the longer it takes to > find a given buffer. "Find" in what way? Please tell more about the problems you have in sessions with many buffers, because I'm not aware of any significant problems. > The more open > buffers I have open, the greater the chance I'll accidently switch > to the wrong one. Again, please tell more details. How does the number of buffers contribute to the chance of selecting a wrong one? For that matter, which commands do you use to switch between buffers? > > And since deleting the visited file is currently very easy, as Eli > > pointed out: > > > > > M-x delete-file RET M-n RET > > > > I don't think this would be a command that people would use a lot. > > Personally, I never want to delete a file and keep the buffer around. So I have replaced *all* my usages of > `delete-file` with this new one. That's fine: Emacs is great because it lets you do that to fit your personal needs. No one here is saying that it's wrong for you to do that; the discussion is whether doing so is TRT for many/most Emacs users (which could have different workflows). > There are many ways to work with Emacs -- many workflows I don't know why this one is considered > wrong. Sure. But there's no reason for Emacs to support all of the OOTB. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* bug#56311: [PATCH] new function: delete-visited-file 2022-07-01 5:57 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2022-07-03 5:06 ` Zachary Kanfer 2022-07-03 6:04 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Zachary Kanfer @ 2022-07-03 5:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen, Visuwesh, 56311, Sean Whitton [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4960 bytes --] > > It's interesting to see commentary about how one shouldn't want to kill buffers. There is a lot of functionality > > revolving around killing buffers. > > Examples of such functionality? I'm not sure I understand what you > have in mind here. I mean functions like kill-buffer, eww-buffer-kill,ido-kill-buffer, project-kill-buffers, gnus-kill-buffer. There are many functions that assist killing buffers. > > I find that the more buffers I have open, the longer it takes to > > find a given buffer. > > "Find" in what way? Please tell more about the problems you have in > sessions with many buffers, because I'm not aware of any significant > problems. When trying to switch to a buffer, the more buffers in the list, the more work needs to be done to find the single buffer I do want. > > The more open > > buffers I have open, the greater the chance I'll accidently switch > > to the wrong one. > > Again, please tell more details. How does the number of buffers > contribute to the chance of selecting a wrong one? Say I delete a file, and kill the buffer. Then there is zero chance I'll ever open that buffer accidentally. If I delete a file, and don't kill the buffer, that buffer is there to be accidentally opened. > For that matter, > which commands do you use to switch between buffers? I'm using switch-to-buffer, using selectrum to display and winnow the buffers. > > > And since deleting the visited file is currently very easy, as Eli > > > pointed out: > > > > > > > M-x delete-file RET M-n RET > > > > > > I don't think this would be a command that people would use a lot. > > > > Personally, I never want to delete a file and keep the buffer around. So I have replaced *all* my usages of > > `delete-file` with this new one. > > That's fine: Emacs is great because it lets you do that to fit your > personal needs. No one here is saying that it's wrong for you to do > that In this thread, there are messages like "..we generally don't care about that (because it does no harm to have unused buffers)...", an argument to not close the buffer (because it allowed them to resurrect mistakenly deleted files), and "They shouldn't be using [this command] a lot...". > the discussion is whether doing so is TRT for many/most Emacs > users (which could have different workflows). How would we know if proposed functionality *would* be used by enough users? What is a threshhold for enough users to add a function? On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 1:57 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote: > > From: Zachary Kanfer <zkanfer@gmail.com> > > Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 23:29:36 -0400 > > Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>, Visuwesh <visuweshm@gmail.com>, > Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, > > 56311@debbugs.gnu.org > > > > It's interesting to see commentary about how one shouldn't want to kill > buffers. There is a lot of functionality > > revolving around killing buffers. > > Examples of such functionality? I'm not sure I understand what you > have in mind here. > > > > ...each time I see suggestions for features to kill unused buffers or > > > see people who are worried about such buffers, I raise a brow: in > > > Emacs, we generally don't care about that (because it does no harm to > > > have unused buffers)... > > > > I use desktop-mode. So I currently have 267 buffers open in my Emacs. > Perhaps you might think I'm "doing > > it wrong", > > Why would I think so? In the session in which I'm writing this, I > have 287 buffers. Having around 300 buffers in my sessions is quite > normal, and I don't consider such numbers excessive. > > > I find that the more buffers I have open, the longer it takes to > > find a given buffer. > > "Find" in what way? Please tell more about the problems you have in > sessions with many buffers, because I'm not aware of any significant > problems. > > > The more open > > buffers I have open, the greater the chance I'll accidently switch > > to the wrong one. > > Again, please tell more details. How does the number of buffers > contribute to the chance of selecting a wrong one? For that matter, > which commands do you use to switch between buffers? > > > > And since deleting the visited file is currently very easy, as Eli > > > pointed out: > > > > > > > M-x delete-file RET M-n RET > > > > > > I don't think this would be a command that people would use a lot. > > > > Personally, I never want to delete a file and keep the buffer around. So > I have replaced *all* my usages of > > `delete-file` with this new one. > > That's fine: Emacs is great because it lets you do that to fit your > personal needs. No one here is saying that it's wrong for you to do > that; the discussion is whether doing so is TRT for many/most Emacs > users (which could have different workflows). > > > There are many ways to work with Emacs -- many workflows I don't know > why this one is considered > > wrong. > > Sure. But there's no reason for Emacs to support all of the OOTB. > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6330 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* bug#56311: [PATCH] new function: delete-visited-file 2022-07-03 5:06 ` Zachary Kanfer @ 2022-07-03 6:04 ` Eli Zaretskii 2022-08-02 11:12 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2022-07-03 6:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zachary Kanfer; +Cc: larsi, visuweshm, 56311, spwhitton > From: Zachary Kanfer <zkanfer@gmail.com> > Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2022 01:06:40 -0400 > Cc: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>, > Visuwesh <visuweshm@gmail.com>, 56311@debbugs.gnu.org > > > > It's interesting to see commentary about how one shouldn't want to kill > buffers. There is a lot of functionality > > > revolving around killing buffers. > > > > Examples of such functionality? I'm not sure I understand what you > > have in mind here. > > I mean functions like kill-buffer, eww-buffer-kill,ido-kill-buffer, > project-kill-buffers, gnus-kill-buffer. There are many functions that > assist killing buffers. OK, and what is the relevance of that to the issue at hand? > > > I find that the more buffers I have open, the longer it takes to > > > find a given buffer. > > > > "Find" in what way? Please tell more about the problems you have in > > sessions with many buffers, because I'm not aware of any significant > > problems. > > When trying to switch to a buffer, the more buffers in the list, the more > work needs to be done to find the single buffer I do want. We have several features to make this easier. There's completion on buffer names, there's the "Buffers" menu on the menu bar, there are "C-x C-b" and electric-buffer-list -- and that's only in vanilla Emacs. > > > Personally, I never want to delete a file and keep the buffer around. > So I have replaced *all* my usages of > > > `delete-file` with this new one. > > > > That's fine: Emacs is great because it lets you do that to fit your > > personal needs. No one here is saying that it's wrong for you to do > > that > > In this thread, there are messages like "..we generally don't care about > that (because it does no harm to have unused buffers)...", an argument to > not close the buffer (because it allowed them to resurrect mistakenly > deleted files), and "They shouldn't be using [this command] a lot...". Note the "in general" part. This doesn't contradict your own personal needs, if they are special ones. > > the discussion is whether doing so is TRT for many/most Emacs > > users (which could have different workflows). > > How would we know if proposed functionality *would* be used by enough > users? What is a threshhold for enough users to add a function? We usually judge that by the number of people who request a feature. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* bug#56311: [PATCH] new function: delete-visited-file 2022-07-03 6:04 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2022-08-02 11:12 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Lars Ingebrigtsen @ 2022-08-02 11:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: spwhitton, Zachary Kanfer, 56311, visuweshm Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: >> > the discussion is whether doing so is TRT for many/most Emacs >> > users (which could have different workflows). >> >> How would we know if proposed functionality *would* be used by enough >> users? What is a threshhold for enough users to add a function? > > We usually judge that by the number of people who request a feature. I think the conclusion here was that there wasn't much enthusiasm for this new function, so I'm closing this bug report. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-08-02 11:12 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-06-30 4:26 bug#56311: [PATCH] new function: delete-visited-file Zachary Kanfer 2022-06-30 5:30 ` Eli Zaretskii 2022-06-30 5:49 ` Sean Whitton 2022-06-30 5:56 ` Eli Zaretskii 2022-06-30 6:20 ` Visuwesh 2022-06-30 10:27 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen 2022-06-30 16:29 ` Sean Whitton 2022-07-01 3:29 ` Zachary Kanfer 2022-07-01 5:57 ` Eli Zaretskii 2022-07-03 5:06 ` Zachary Kanfer 2022-07-03 6:04 ` Eli Zaretskii 2022-08-02 11:12 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).