From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stephen Berman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Question about handling file deletion Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 00:44:23 +0200 Message-ID: <87mwq88rlk.fsf@rosalinde.fritz.box> References: <87zjud5aej.fsf@rosalinde.fritz.box> <51CEE315.1020803@taydin.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1372545876 26627 80.91.229.3 (29 Jun 2013 22:44:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 22:44:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Timur Aydin Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 30 00:44:37 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ut3si-0003SR-JD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 00:44:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53216 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ut3si-0005DJ-6x for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 18:44:36 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59230) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ut3sd-0005DB-1v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 18:44:34 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ut3sa-0000s9-EO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 18:44:31 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]:55714) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ut3sa-0000rT-3w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 18:44:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.10]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MWMLs-1Ulpfm45Mo-00Xd1R for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 00:44:24 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 29 Jun 2013 22:44:24 -0000 Original-Received: from i59F5441C.versanet.de (EHLO rosalinde.fritz.box) [89.245.68.28] by mail.gmx.net (mp010) with SMTP; 30 Jun 2013 00:44:24 +0200 X-Authenticated: #20778731 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+21dxzxzm2RR5+cAZqYJMMUU3MaoX9QiweHoSqN7 P6XHgYulyVYOIO In-Reply-To: <51CEE315.1020803@taydin.org> (Timur Aydin's message of "Sat, 29 Jun 2013 16:37:25 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 212.227.17.21 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:161306 Archived-At: On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 16:37:25 +0300 Timur Aydin wrote: > On 6/26/2013 3:22 PM, Stephen Berman wrote: >> If a package provides functionality for deleting files used by it, is it >> considered a bug in the package if it does not handle the situation >> where a user deletes such files using a command outside of the package >> and this causes errors when using the package which don't arise if the >> package file-deletion functionality is used? I'm faced with this issue >> in the new version of todo-mode.el (see bug#14688). If someone deletes >> a todo file using e.g. Dired and then gets an error in Todo mode and >> reports it as a bug, is it kosher for me reply "If it hurts, don't do >> that. Use todo-delete-file." and close the bug? (That command doesn't >> actually exist yet, but I think it will be much easier to implement than >> trying to handle the result of deleting todo files outside of Todo >> mode.) > > When I visit a file and then delete that file using "rm", the buffer of that > file is still there and emacs doesn't do anything about it. So if somebody > deletes a TODO file, why not let the todo information stay in the respective > buffer? It does, and this can cause problems, as I elaborated in this thread. > So what is different about todo-mode.el that makes it necessary to > implement a different behavior? > > I'm not criticizing you motivation, only trying to understand the situation > better. I tried to explain that here: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2013-06/msg01154.html But in this followup: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2013-06/msg01216.html I acknowledged that it's better to handle external file deletion, and that's what I'll try to do. Steve Berman