Re: Crash recovery strategies

[Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1174 bytes --]

On 01/03/2016 03:27 PM, John Wiegley wrote:
>>>>>> Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> writes:
> 
>> So although it'd be fine to have async-signal-safe autosave as an option, as
>> a user I'd like to also retain the option for Emacs to keep doing the same
>> old unsafe stuff that it's been doing for decades, at least until after we
>> get in-the-field experience with the new approach.
> 
> Agreed. There should absolutely be an option to retain the unsafe behavior,
> since at the very least it can be useful to have Emacs stick around while
> exploring the behavior of a bug in situ. So we won't delete the longjmp code,
> we just might change the default behavior to something more consistent with
> safer practices.
> 
> Also completely agree on the in-the-field experience part. I'm not even sure
> we'll change the default behavior right away; we might give it a few releases
> to see how it goes, and to hear back from people who've decided to turn it on.

More generally, how do we feel about automatically sending crash reports
to the FSF? Of course, we'd send reports stripped of personally
identifiable information, as is standard practice.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]