From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thien-Thi Nguyen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: about the byte-opt.el patch Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:00:05 +0200 Message-ID: <877ipdg5l6.fsf@ambire.localdomain> References: <87hcoilt68.fsf@ambire.localdomain> <873b02tw7d.fsf@ambire.localdomain> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1183719650 8009 80.91.229.12 (6 Jul 2007 11:00:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:00:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: fengli@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 06 13:00:47 2007 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1I6lYL-0007Fp-4o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:00:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I6lYK-00004x-Nb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 07:00:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I6lYC-0008SH-Kw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 07:00:36 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I6lY6-0008OD-Nv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 07:00:32 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I6lY6-0008Nt-AM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 07:00:30 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp-out4.libero.it ([212.52.84.46]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1I6lXz-0003Ms-S9; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 07:00:24 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (172.31.0.47) by smtp-out4.libero.it (7.3.120) id 4688F3500083E9E0; Fri, 6 Jul 2007 13:00:22 +0200 X-Scanned: with antispam and antivirus automated system at libero.it Original-Received: from smtp-out1.libero.it ([172.31.0.37]) by localhost (asav-out6.libero.it [192.168.32.34]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Gz8o1N5F0jc; Fri, 6 Jul 2007 13:00:22 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from outrelay08.libero.it (192.168.32.103) by smtp-out1.libero.it (7.3.120) id 4611FC91070D32FD; Fri, 6 Jul 2007 13:00:22 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CABa9jUaXFSDt/2dsb2JhbAA Original-Received: from ppp-237-32.21-151.libero.it (HELO ambire.localdomain) ([151.21.32.237]) by OutRelay-b08.libero.it with ESMTP; 06 Jul 2007 13:00:21 +0200 Original-Received: from ttn by ambire.localdomain with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1I6lXh-000165-NK; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:00:05 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri\, 06 Jul 2007 12\:50\:05 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.97 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:74388 Archived-At: () Eli Zaretskii () Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:50:05 +0300 Is this change really a good idea? It defeats the purpose of CVSREAD, doesn't it? for a handful of files, yes. and only yes, partially. i use CVSREAD=1 primarily to be able to categorically determine that some file has not been munged by me, accidentally. in the case of "make bootstrap", file munging is intentional... Perhaps it is better to change autoload.el so that it can update even read-only files, and preserve the read-only attribute of a file after it's finished updating its autoload cookies. WDYT? ...and furthermore, if it is munged, i don't want it to appear (on quick scan) unmunged. now, if the munging produces no change in the text; then that would be a good reason to chmod it back to read-only. if such "move-if-changed" checking can be added to autoload then i would support having autoload deal w/ read-only files. re-reading what i wrote above, it doesn't seem so clear (even to me) what my thoughts are. so let's just let the brain rest and give the lazy soul some floor: why don't we leave it like so for now and revisit this later if someone complains. thi