From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chong Yidong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [ottomaddox@fastmail.fm: emacsclient won't open new frame on remote display] Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:49:41 -0400 Message-ID: <87ejwy1h8a.fsf@stupidchicken.com> References: <873bdhdt2z.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87hd1w8a3e.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1152226169 23196 80.91.229.2 (6 Jul 2006 22:49:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 22:49:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 07 00:49:27 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fycf1-0004kW-6Q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:49:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fycf0-0006dC-PK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:49:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Fyceo-0006d1-QA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:49:14 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Fycen-0006ch-Ta for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:49:14 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fycen-0006ce-RA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:49:13 -0400 Original-Received: from [18.19.1.138] (helo=cyd) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1Fycf5-0004h7-Bf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:49:31 -0400 Original-Received: by cyd (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EC0704E2AC; Thu, 6 Jul 2006 18:49:41 -0400 (EDT) Original-To: Stefan Monnier In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:14:07 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) 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:56673 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >>> This suggested change causes Emacs to create a new frame displaying some >>> random buffer. If server.el subsequently uses switch-to-buffer or something >>> like that, it's probably OK, but if it instead uses something like >>> pop-to-buffer because you want to display emacsclient buffers in their own >>> window or frame, then you end up with 2 windows (or frames) one of which >>> displays some random buffer. > >> As the original bug report indicates, the current default behavior is >> that the buffer is not displayed at all, which is clearly broken. My >> thinking is that it makes more sense to create the new frame, to >> ensure that the default behavior (with no customizations) works. If >> the user customizes the emacsserver behavior, like changing it to use >> pop-to-buffer, those personal customizations can be adapted to work >> with extra displays. But the default behavior must definitely work. > >> What do you think? > > The OP's problem is indeed clearly a bug. I was just pointing out why your > patch is not a good fix. I've checked in a fix that I think addresses your objection.