From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: GUI vs TTY when saving & restoring framesets Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 20:14:03 +0200 Message-ID: <83o9yz3qtw.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20170122132727.GA12823@acm> <831svv5a4l.fsf@gnu.org> <20170122180010.GB12823@acm> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1485108871 20590 195.159.176.226 (22 Jan 2017 18:14:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 18:14:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 22 19:14:27 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cVMeb-0003xL-TJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 19:14:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37297 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cVMeg-0002LS-NO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:14:18 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36822) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cVMeb-0002LL-S9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:14:14 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cVMeX-0007Sj-Cr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:14:13 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:43737) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cVMeX-0007Sf-9Y; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:14:09 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3927 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1cVMeV-0003ip-NR; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:14:08 -0500 In-reply-to: <20170122180010.GB12823@acm> (message from Alan Mackenzie on Sun, 22 Jan 2017 18:00:10 +0000) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:211548 Archived-At: > Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 18:00:10 +0000 > Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Alan Mackenzie > > #23630 is not fixed. I've just tried it..... > > > FWIW, when I finished working on bug#24298, I no longer saw incorrect > > order of buffers after restoring the desktop: their order was always > > the same, as long as I restored from the same desktop file. Maybe you > > just don't like the order in which desktop.el puts them in the desktop > > file? > > ... on master. I had four frames open, cycled through them, then did > C-x C-c, creating the desktop file and exiting. > > I restarted Emacs, which created the four frames, and then did C-x C-b. > The second entry there was *scratch*. This was not any of the four > buffers which were in the frames' windows when I previously shut down. ??? The *scratch* buffer is created in any Emacs session regardless of the saved desktop. So why isn't the above TRT? When did Emacs and desktop.el behave differently? > Other than that, the order of the buffers in C-x C-b is the reverse of > the order in my desktop file. Why is that a problem? The order of buffers in the desktop file is not something a user is supposed to look at, or care about.