bug#19865: tar-untar-buffer: should honor default-directory

[Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.net>]

>>>>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>>>>> From: Ivan Shmakov  Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:12:47 +0000
>>>>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

[…]

 >> I will surely respect any NAKs from those in charge of the given
 >> package, or Emacs as a whole (as per the Savannah project page.)

 > The file says emacs-devel is in charge, so I'm not sure who you mean
 > here.

--cut: https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/emacs/ --
   Project Admins:
     - Stefan Monnier
     - Eli Zaretskii
     - Richard M. Stallman
     - Miles Bader
     - Francesco Potortì
     - Kim F. Storm
--cut: https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/emacs/ --

 >>> I cannot force anyone here to do anything, I don’t have that power.

 >> We’re all volunteers here, yes.  But you can – and, I’d argue,
 >> should – /prevent/ the use of the Emacs community resources for the
 >> purposes contrary to the advancement of the project itself.

 > I don't know what that means in practice.

	In practice, that means that those who keep interfering with the
	community efforts risk losing their commit access.  (Or “posting
	access” to the mailing list, just like it happened to one of the
	bug-hurd@ participants something like a decade back.  Etc.)

 > I have my opinions and views, but who is to say whether they are or
 > aren't contrary to the advancement?

	It’s up to those who’re in charge to decide.  I can understand
	the lack of interest in holding such a responsibility, but the
	problem is: I don’t want it, either.

	Still, I have no means to /force/ you to review my submissions.
	But once you did – I won’t use community resources against your
	/objections./  (As opposed to, say, lack of appreciation – I can
	accept that perfectly well.)

	(In short: the golden rule of volunteer-driven projects is that
	the leaders tell us not what we /do,/ but what we /do not./)

[…]

 >> And I’d still like to hear why you think that tar-untar-buffer
 >> /must/ use the value of default-directory local to a buffer /other/
 >> than the one the user called this command from.

 > Because it's simpler, and makes the code easier to follow.

	My former patch expands the code by a single line; my latter one
	adds two more for a comment (while removing one level of nesting
	from a fair chunk of the code at the same time.)  How is that
	making it any harder to follow?

	Besides, as I’ve already noted, it does make tar-untar-buffer
	more consistent with both the rest of tar-mode.el, /and/ the
	rest of Emacs.  I thus believe that a single extra LoC is fully
	justified here.

-- 
FSF associate member #7257  np. Cherry Blossom — David Modica  B6A0 230E 334A