From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Noam Postavsky Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#30207: 27.0.50; [PATCH] other-window-for-scrolling returns window on daemon frame Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:29:12 -0500 Message-ID: <87h8rdo1t3.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> References: <87inbtvqci.fsf@tcd.ie> <5A6634A3.3040403@gmx.at> <87h8rdfnew.fsf@tcd.ie> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1516667307 19217 195.159.176.226 (23 Jan 2018 00:28:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 00:28:27 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.90 (gnu/linux) Cc: 30207@debbugs.gnu.org To: "Basil L. Contovounesios" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 23 01:28:22 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edmRh-0004C0-E7 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:28:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49322 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edmTh-00078F-Qr for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:30:17 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53876) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edmTW-0006zT-UC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:30:07 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edmTT-0006wk-R9 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:30:06 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:59106) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edmTT-0006wd-OX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:30:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edmTT-0004ic-IH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:30:03 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Noam Postavsky Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 00:30:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 30207 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 30207-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B30207.151666736318049 (code B ref 30207); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 00:30:03 +0000 Original-Received: (at 30207) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jan 2018 00:29:23 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38768 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edmSp-0004h3-7d for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:29:23 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-it0-f42.google.com ([209.85.214.42]:36820) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edmSn-0004gp-1I for 30207@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:29:21 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-it0-f42.google.com with SMTP id p124so11821033ite.1 for <30207@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:29:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=xL2nel7fi10ZUyQaBZU6pN0vYpEM0xezdGIydnXXUDo=; b=Cd7OLHe5RguEfSP5p9XDERHusvNHyokeG2/Pvs9YIeF8RyWNR8ojEGFebZveF8jqny D7VHD6geAg/THBD1WMuobguuKCf1ocugRsXmPvGzaWfm0R0NCuXmz/zclwjPQjf2LWqf C7TjnqA5Xm5pc8j3MD4by0E59COUBIIJXrgKpjltLMY/oFk3DJ2fWgqre/19IAgRfy7b ZgaOvJznT1hFL3MDe+Ka8Z5verZ0dF0KBWtl5+F+PMwTCMPFGtmN7Pv+SWcR68ZzCfOD B5ywKvTbhD0uZV0g6CRsButTxnVZmMAJqKwvSqsy4M/dN0eSc4FhxQk3hwJwKYacLvgy 8pOQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=xL2nel7fi10ZUyQaBZU6pN0vYpEM0xezdGIydnXXUDo=; b=BPQfUZBIzFgbz+plR/IxApE+mVYlssNdQkbNMa2U4HC9A72nXWXPbNBP5roK4iHO3U Krf+wgIEWQ97EkZz3KSq1LG+IeNixIN7hzKJcHdpUB29n49J0fbpLa6YUWXrJqjFbAM3 ETGZO5cTv0hYufGSlvEAquuEZ4DNIq1UvJFx1S4rZvP1vDBvE9YY2nCuiKr3oNEIiCk0 3CXwLyUDXScg/te00cprUDzmhOoKGmsnMJPh39iapvgOq+zebd8OeYKOI8oKyllSFfFy IeU9gcfM+sTrQ4eOeLs3CO4BX8xtrlcGbjAqivQ8NO7oiWkb5jdbjnj/rtl4s20Pj9Cd HrCg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfuHpT57l/yU+LHomTrOCH3SA/prnkdQFOq9RFV8i6nLsyij1r4 +SGBLEcjRSZKKYXdG/2aePc0xg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224uri5hUqLPcYG43A41H4HTU/E0euBEFLuNYORJCePBaQ78aOWtxznKo34WvKImLap7Rtrg+Q== X-Received: by 10.36.225.197 with SMTP id n188mr1211896ith.9.1516667355263; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:29:15 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from zebian ([45.2.119.34]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id e1sm1802372ioe.13.2018.01.22.16.29.13 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:29:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87h8rdfnew.fsf@tcd.ie> (Basil L. Contovounesios's message of "Tue, 23 Jan 2018 00:07:19 +0000") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:142409 Archived-At: "Basil L. Contovounesios" writes: > I can't imagine a scenario where I would want to scroll a frame on a > different terminal, so I personally prefer the bug#56160-style > restriction to the current terminal for both its semantic and syntactic > simplicity. I believe some people use Emacs in a single-window-per-frame style and manage the frames via the window manager, so scrolling in other terminals sounds useful for that kind of scenario. > OTOH, the other two approaches preserve established behaviour and also > have the following merits: > > 1. Ignoring the daemon frame acts as a reminder to review the daemon > frame visibility issue discussed in bug#27210. Thanks for reminding us about it. :) I'm still of the opinion that the daemon frame should be marked invisible (what with it being not visible and all).