From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#32991: 27.0.50; diff-auto-refine-mode a no-op Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:44:09 -0500 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="216896"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: 32991@debbugs.gnu.org To: charles@aurox.ch (Charles A. Roelli) Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 18 21:45:18 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gvpmu-000uAo-Gk for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:45:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36432 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gvpmt-0000mq-9l for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:45:15 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:43262) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gvpmi-0000lL-Rv for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:45:07 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gvpmh-0005Xd-23 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:45:04 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:53966) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gvpmg-0005XC-MC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:45:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gvpmg-00069i-GA for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:45:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 20:45:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 32991 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 32991-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B32991.155052270123639 (code B ref 32991); Mon, 18 Feb 2019 20:45:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 32991) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Feb 2019 20:45:01 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53247 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gvpme-00069C-Ko for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:45:00 -0500 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:51801) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gvpmb-00068y-FH for 32991@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:44:59 -0500 Original-Received: from milanesa.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.7/8.14.1) with ESMTP id x1IKiARa014016; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:44:11 -0500 Original-Received: by milanesa.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 06EBF66112; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:44:10 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Charles A. Roelli's message of "Mon, 18 Feb 2019 20:06:35 +0100") X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 2 Rules triggered EDT_SA_DN_PASS=0, RV6485=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9418 : core <6485> : inlines <7018> : streams <1813425> : uri <2798427> 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: 209.51.188.43 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:155513 Archived-At: >> Ah, right, makes sense. Could we fix this more directly by using >> `called-interactively` instead? > I think so, though I avoided that function because of the warnings in > its documentation. Yes, it's better to avoid it. But in this case, it's just a temporary situation in order to cut the patch into two chunks, so it's perfectly fine. > For a bit of background: I sometimes enable a minor mode in the > ChangeLog buffer which narrows *vc-diff* (if displayed) to the changes > of the file at point, like an rmail summary buffer with its > corresponding message buffer. I'd like to eventually add this feature > to add-log.el. The current diff-hunk-prev/diff-hunk-next change the > narrowing of the buffer and thus cause some friction with this minor > mode. As I said, I don't care much about this restriction "feature" of diff-hunk-prev/diff-hunk-next, so I think it's OK to just drop it. If some users then complain, we can see how to re-add it. > defcustom for it in a second patch (ditto for the re-centering). But the recentering is more important, IMO. And I don't quite see why you'd need a defcustom for it (I can see why you might only do the recentering when the function is called interactively, tho). Stefan