From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: When suggesting a file recovery, emacs should maybe check for actual changes Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 17:30:17 +0300 Message-ID: <83o7uu1eo6.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87tu4m71x3.fsf@autistici.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="24459"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andrea Monaco Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 02 16:31:51 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1of00V-0006ER-GT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 16:31:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51568 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1of00U-0004N7-Jd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 10:31:50 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40506) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oezz7-0002kk-TL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 10:30:29 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:54094) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oezz7-0006jV-LB; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 10:30:25 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=GvfikAdl8T9HbUftjU/XDcRu68yp6LFkmTZkhmz9C78=; b=ViUcTw7dNYGY nwmw27UuWFgazOb2dNcuz0UGOrYcQ1D7n40JiIjtHwRcNiGl5dOsoyWOBGsSpSfJwCAaPW8WYpAYZ PQg8EAnKnj+Q5QB5s2x4xHIA3QKPfyBypCDUPdsjOfmmfpiVGab6J8MrdWabH7BNqAowiBJyLO40O DswAgAu13dN9rTPNOM7/6DqYZa+1heAkAdFeOnLg7TNuF7dQVVC7ztFDY9KAQtF7H0CiLCmmobJNF vWOqDbY1vrtVyR9klkKIA5/279x+F5os8ExJQofIQyH2skmvhHFwRikQ9v3M/HGeWabgBTQfwAXWP cTvqGdbsStPhfoA6A6vZYA==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=1295 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oezz7-00073Q-4b; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 10:30:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87tu4m71x3.fsf@autistici.org> (message from Andrea Monaco on Sun, 02 Oct 2022 16:09:12 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:296617 Archived-At: > From: Andrea Monaco > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 16:09:12 +0200 > > > > Why is it a problem that they are identical? > > Because in that case there's nothing to recover, so emacs is suggesting > a meaningless operation; also, the user will needlessly worry about lost > data. Just restore the file, and all those problems is gone. Why risk false negatives in a feature that must be 110% reliable?