From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#49869: Revert buffer? Yes/No/Maybe Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2021 13:30:44 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87im0la99d.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83pmutl8iv.fsf@gnu.org> <83im0ll7oi.fsf@gnu.org> <83h7g5l6al.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="17093"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: juri@linkov.net, 49869@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 04 15:31:13 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 1mBGzI-0004D1-9e for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2021 15:31:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54280 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mBGzH-0002fB-6N for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2021 09:31:11 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48682) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mBGz9-0002cl-5N for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2021 09:31:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:59796) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mBGz8-0005hi-SL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2021 09:31:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mBGz8-00051B-GB for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2021 09:31:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Gregory Heytings Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2021 13:31:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 49869 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 49869-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B49869.162808384919261 (code B ref 49869); Wed, 04 Aug 2021 13:31:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 49869) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Aug 2021 13:30:49 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43109 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mBGyu-00050Y-VZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2021 09:30:49 -0400 Original-Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:35476) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mBGys-00050M-HA for 49869@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2021 09:30:47 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20210101; t=1628083844; bh=0t6A8z5QL1jUQmpCbCCunp7iktCKyOCYB5tA3xg+8Rc=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=gDNtCVzNq1jjGvpAFxYd/xqZgnwYlvju5gT3cBdfu8uoI7DZ2n+Kbm1ev6wQvbECn xImqPS2zXfxoE08HLoOGx4/QCzBXbOgw/MLmvlNv3QBZ5LrTryAyHDaSZmvg2QY4ZI 6CVpCCLpMLvpQ6R7ZErNXltSFUVFunm5JUyBBOlSFDe2Cv03nQaIXBHYx46f7dEjZr FyqY+I2NpxRSHfMqx5PljaTHxNQrLi9tMYERw32i5SMKEXSinprDxv9r75o1U4lzLi FLHVsYmmliBGGVHNa2fTiLM2jQc4JVTUOQ0VMjuYsJ4BW4LyC6gTjL0e4SiLj+CfS7 ujxVvRmUKXNlg== In-Reply-To: <83h7g5l6al.fsf@gnu.org> 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:211175 Archived-At: >> No, I propose this as a solution to Juri's problem, instead of his >> proposed solution to "revert the buffer immediately" with C-x x g, >> which is indeed too drastic. Something even better to take Lars' >> suggestion (do not ask confirmation when the buffer has not been >> modified) into account: > > I don't think we need to cater to personal preferences by adding new > commands. The user option exists so that users could customize the > behavior to their liking without requiring us to provide a solution for > every personal taste. > I don't know. I did not ask for this, but Juri's remark (that with a default configuration the confirmation uses more keystrokes than the command itself) makes sense to me. And setting the user option has a global effect, not just on this particular command. But it's up to the maintainers to decide what's the right way to go.