Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Jambunathan K]

I am not sure this counts as an bug or an area for improvement.  The
description is fuzzy.  Please be patient.

Timeline:

Happens post Juanma's frameset enhancements.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Problem: 

Minibuffer gets much below (or beyond) the visible area of my monitor (I
use netbook.)  See the attached screenshot.  This makes Emacs
practically useless.

----------------------------------------------------------------

How do I get in to above scenario:

0. No desktop file.
1. emacs -Q but with desktop enabled.

    (custom-set-variables
     '(desktop-base-file-name "~/.emacs.desktop")
     '(desktop-save-mode t))

2. The frame occupies only a part of my screen.  Maximize it.  

3. IMPORTANT STEP: Open a lot of buffers.  

   This is step is important to ensure that there is a notable delay
   between "the initial frame" and "maximized frame" when Emacs is
   restarted.

4. Save desktop.  Quit Emacs.

5. Restart Emacs.

   Emacs starts with an *un*-maximized frame.  The frame would remain in
   this state until the .emacs (and hence the desktop) is fully loaded.

   CRUCIAL STEP: Don't wait for intitalization to finish.  Maximize the
   frame via the window manager.  (I do this out of habit.)

6. After the Emacs has inited, see a frame where the minibuffer has gone
   underneath my monitor.  i.e., minibuffer is totally inaccessible.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Expected behaviour:

1. Setting of initial frame size should take precedence over other
   initialization stuff or 

2. The frameset code should account for the above quirky behaviour of
   me.  (If frame is maximized, then nothing to do.)

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:

>    CRUCIAL STEP: Don't wait for intitalization to finish.  Maximize the
>    frame via the window manager.  (I do this out of habit.)

IMO, after this there isn't much we can do at the frameset (lisp)
level. If you want to use the desktop-restoring feature, I'd suggest
getting out of that habit.

    J

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Jambunathan K]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

>>    CRUCIAL STEP: Don't wait for intitalization to finish.  Maximize the
>>    frame via the window manager.  (I do this out of habit.)
>
> IMO, after this there isn't much we can do at the frameset (lisp)
> level. If you want to use the desktop-restoring feature, I'd suggest
> getting out of that habit.

If the maximization or correct sizing of frame happens BEFORE other
restorations happen, then there wouldn't be need for this right?

Why does setting of frame maximization happen LATER.

Anyways ...

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:

> If the maximization or correct sizing of frame happens BEFORE other
> restorations happen, then there wouldn't be need for this right?

I'm not sure if you mean before restoring buffers, etc, or before
other frameset.el stuff.

> Why does setting of frame maximization happen LATER.

Look at previous discussions. The relationship between window-manager
maximization and what Emacs thinks about its maximized state is
complex. And the order things are done in frameset.el is heuristics to
get the best behavior I could manage; but if you have a patch that
makes things work better, I'm all ears.

    J

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Jambunathan K]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If the maximization or correct sizing of frame happens BEFORE other
>> restorations happen, then there wouldn't be need for this right?
>
> I'm not sure if you mean before restoring buffers, etc, or before
> other frameset.el stuff.

I will share a screencast.  First I want to make sure that we are
looking at the same paper.


>> Why does setting of frame maximization happen LATER.
>
> Look at previous discussions. The relationship between window-manager
> maximization and what Emacs thinks about its maximized state is
> complex. And the order things are done in frameset.el is heuristics to
> get the best behavior I could manage; 

No I don't know where the problem lies.  But restoration of framesizes
happened only after you added frameset changes.  (Prior to that I just
used to maximize the inital frame, store it in a register, dump that
register in to my .emacs in a frame alist or some var like that)

i.e., I am not pointing fingers at you.

> but if you have a patch that makes things work better, I'm all ears.

IME, this is a polite way of saying STFU.  I can if that is what you
want.  Let me know.

>     J

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:

> No I don't know where the problem lies.  But restoration of framesizes
> happened only after you added frameset changes.  (Prior to that I just
> used to maximize the inital frame, store it in a register, dump that
> register in to my .emacs in a frame alist or some var like that)

You can turn off the frame-restoring stuff by setting/customizing
desktop-restore-frames to nil.

> IME, this is a polite way of saying STFU.  I can if that is what you
> want.  Let me know.

When I want to say STFU, I usually say "STFU". So no.

What I'm saying is that the things frameset.el does are complex, not
because inherent complexity, but by Emacs and window-manager quirks
and implementation details. So changes that do not break other places
aren't trivial, and currently I do not have much time to work on it.
Also, the problem you're reporting seems to me a bit of a non-problem
(I mean, maximizing while Emacs is trying to restore the frames
doesn't seem a good idea to me). But if you post a patch, I'll look
into it. Just don't forget that any change should work not only on the
various GNU/Linux wm, but also Windows and NS.

   J

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Jambunathan K]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> What I'm saying is that the things frameset.el does are complex

It is easy to get lost in to details and stuff when you are the original
developer of the feature :-).  What I am asking for is simple and
achievable.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I am asking for moving the frame restoration as far ahead as is humanly
possible in the init sequence.

i.e., Restore the frames before the buffers are loaded. 

The current observed behaviour tells me that frames are restored *after*
the buffers are loaded which means that re-sizing happens later.

----------------------------------------------------------------

TLDR: (Effectively) Swap the relative order of the following calls in
desktop-read

;; Evaluate desktop buffer and remember when it was modified.
(load (desktop-full-file-name) t t t)

(desktop-restore-frameset)

----------------------------------------------------------------

With around 200 buffers open, the below simple fix to .emacs.desktop
gives me a better "resizing experience".

# See .emacs.desktop

   (setq desktop-saved-frameset blah blah)
+  (desktop-restore-frameset)

   ;; Buffer section -- buffers listed in same order as in buffer list:
   (desktop-create-buffer blah)
   (desktop-create-buffer blah)
   (desktop-create-buffer blah)

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Jambunathan K]

Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:

> moving the frame restoration as far ahead as is humanly possible in
> the init sequence.

Just to emphasize, by "as far as ahead" I mean not WITHIN the desktop
init sequence but in the WHOLE init sequence. 

Frameset init is plugging in to desktop infrastructure right now, but
can it really be pushed so far ahead so that one gets an equivalent of

1. "emacs -Q"
2. frame creation/restoration
3. rest of the stuff.

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Stefan Monnier]

> Frameset init is plugging in to desktop infrastructure right now, but
> can it really be pushed so far ahead so that one gets an equivalent of
> 1. "emacs -Q"
> 2. frame creation/restoration
> 3. rest of the stuff.

Sounds difficult: you need to read the .emacs beforehand, to give
a chance to the user to set things like desktop-restore-frames.


        Stefan

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:
>    (setq desktop-saved-frameset blah blah)
> +  (desktop-restore-frameset)
>
>    ;; Buffer section -- buffers listed in same order as in buffer list:
>    (desktop-create-buffer blah)
>    (desktop-create-buffer blah)
>    (desktop-create-buffer blah)

Have you tried that with multiple frames and multiple windows in each
frame, and minibuffer-only frames, etc., and do buffers get restored
to their windows?

   J

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Jambunathan K]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> Have you tried that with multiple frames and multiple windows in each
> frame, and minibuffer-only frames, etc., and do buffers get restored
> to their windows?

No, I use a single frame.  I don't plan to use multiple frames.

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:

> No, I use a single frame.  I don't plan to use multiple frames.

I'm not surprised your proposed change works for you, then. But it can
not possibly work for multi-(frames|windows) setups, because if you
restore frames before buffers you screw up the window-buffer
correspondences.

Anyway, if you use a single-frame setup, I don't understand why you do
use desktop-restore-frames. It would seem more logical to turn if off
and maximize the single frame by other means (like initial-frame-alist
or some of the initialization hooks,depending on the moment you want
the frame to maximize).

    J

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Stefan Monnier]

> Anyway, if you use a single-frame setup, I don't understand why you do
> use desktop-restore-frames.

How 'bout only (re)storing frames if there is more than one?


        Stefan

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Juanma Barranquero]

> How 'bout only (re)storing frames if there is more than one?

Even for one frame, you can have a complex window setup that you want
restored (in fact, that's my more common use case).

    J

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[chad]

On 11 Nov 2013, at 06:15, Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> wrote:

>> How 'bout only (re)storing frames if there is more than one?
> 
> Even for one frame, you can have a complex window setup that you want
> restored (in fact, that's my more common use case).

As a single data point: I am usually only restoring one frame, and
I definitely want it restored. Of course, I'm willing to enable
this behavior if it is non-default, but it seems like a better
default, especially if the motivation is "The users might be unable
to stop themselves from manually resizing frames in the middle of
startup, even though they know they shouldn't."

Hope that helps,
~Chad

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Jambunathan K]

chad <yandros@MIT.EDU> writes:

> "The users might be unable to stop themselves from manually resizing
> frames in the middle of startup, even though they know they
> shouldn't."

If a user does this his Emacs is USELESS (as my screenshot shows).
There are countless times that I had to restart my Emacs just to
workaround the issue.

I will revert on this thread if and when I have more information.

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:57:51 +0530
> Cc: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>,
> 	Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>,
> 	Emacs developers <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
> 
> chad <yandros@MIT.EDU> writes:
> 
> > "The users might be unable to stop themselves from manually resizing
> > frames in the middle of startup, even though they know they
> > shouldn't."
> 
> If a user does this his Emacs is USELESS (as my screenshot shows).
> There are countless times that I had to restart my Emacs just to
> workaround the issue.

That sounds strange: at the very least, you should be able to invoke
functions and commands from the *scratch* buffer, and the first
command could be to set the frame dimensions to something usable.
Alternatively, you could create a new frame (which supposedly will use
default-frame-alist, and thus be of reasonable dimensions), and then
kill the initial frame.  Both alternatives sound better than
restarting Emacs.

Am I missing something?

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Jambunathan K]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> Am I missing something?

Yes.  

There are Emacs users who MAY not care about Emacs lisp.  Much of what
you say is really too much for a reasonable proportions of "young" Emacs
users.

When I am filing a bug, I am not representing myself.

Jambunathan K.

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
> Cc: lekktu@gmail.com,  yandros@MIT.EDU,  monnier@iro.umontreal.ca,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 21:54:18 +0530
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > Am I missing something?
> 
> Yes.  
> 
> There are Emacs users who MAY not care about Emacs lisp.  Much of what
> you say is really too much for a reasonable proportions of "young" Emacs
> users.
> 
> When I am filing a bug, I am not representing myself.

Well, I was trying to help _you_, as your language suggested that you
indeed restart Emacs in these circumstances.  Glad to hear you it's
not the case.

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Jambunathan K]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> I'm not surprised your proposed change works for you, then. But it can
> not possibly work for multi-(frames|windows) setups, because if you
> restore frames before buffers you screw up the window-buffer
> correspondences.

I don't understand (or claim to understand) the technicalities.  Looks
like there is a *very* tight coupling between the various entities when
in fact they should be loosely associated.  May be NOT relying on
existing infrastructure would give more flexibility.

Those are the gut feelings of a programmer.  Don't look in to it for
reasons.  Anyways, just some food for thought...

Jambunathan K.

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:

> Looks
> like there is a *very* tight coupling between the various entities when
> in fact they should be loosely associated.

Coupling restoration of frames and windows and frame-buffer
correspondences is an UI issue; it would certainly be possible to
restore frames, and delay restoring window states, but then you get
annoying "flashes" when things are first put onto the screen and then
resized or redrawn. One of the goals of the frameset feature was to
try to put the frames and their contents into the screen at once, at
their final position and with their final contents, as much as
possible.

> May be NOT relying on
> existing infrastructure would give more flexibility.

Which infrastructure? Buffer restoration by desktop.el?

    J

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:15:27 +0530
> Cc: Emacs developers <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
> 
> I don't understand (or claim to understand) the technicalities.  Looks
> like there is a *very* tight coupling between the various entities when
> in fact they should be loosely associated.  May be NOT relying on
> existing infrastructure would give more flexibility.

This is not about infrastructure.  This is about the fact that
starting Emacs while bringing .emacs into effect is somewhat akin
bootstrapping: you cannot have some customizations take effect until
the objects they customize are created.  Frames are one of those
objects, but there are others.  This complication is one reason why we
have the abomination known as 'initial-frame-alist'.

If you look at startup.el, you will see that it sometimes performs the
same initializations more than once, for the same reason: user
customizations might have changed things half way through the startup.

So this is a general problem.  IIRC, a lot of research went at the
time into finding the best place for restoring frames.  Of course, if
you have concrete proposals that work, let's hear them.

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Jambunathan K]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> Of course, if you have concrete proposals that work, let's hear them.

I have added more details as part of bug#15870.  The behaviour there is
unacceptable.  

If frameset restoration is a hairy business, then have it disabled by
default.  Introduction of this feature is adding a discontinuity to my
existing customization and workflow.

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
> Cc: lekktu@gmail.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:13:42 +0530
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > Of course, if you have concrete proposals that work, let's hear them.
> 
> I have added more details as part of bug#15870.

Thanks.

> If frameset restoration is a hairy business, then have it disabled by
> default.

_Everything_ during startup is hairy, and I tried to explain why in
one of my previous messages.  It would be unreasonable to disable
features just because startup is hard to get right.  Instead, we
should work on these features to avoid annoying problems, as we always
do.  I think since restoration of frame configuration was finalized,
this is the first complaint, which means quite a few users are happy.
I'm sure your reports will be analyzed and acted upon.

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Jambunathan K]

> I'm sure your reports will be analyzed and acted upon.

This is what I wanted to hear.  If it's NOT worthwhile, I wouldn't
report them in first place.  This is a promise I can make.

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Jambunathan K writes:

 > > but if you have a patch that makes things work better, I'm all ears.
 > 
 > IME, this is a polite way of saying STFU.

That's rude and unjustified, unless you are very experienced in
dealing with the foibles of X Window System window managers.

I haven't dealt with Emacs's code, but I have worked with XEmacs as
well as a number of toy examples, and I assure you that negotiation
with the WM is as complex as Juanma says.  I would even go so far as
to say "inherently so", because WMs are concurrent processes
performing complex negotiations where the app and the WM are apt to
disagree about assignment of responsibility for handling the many edge
cases.

IOW, when Juanma says "unless you have a patch", he's saying "I've
thought hard about this and don't know how to do better, but I
wouldn't be surprised if somebody -- including you -- has a better
way.  Please teach me!"[1]

metacity-geometry-negotiation-was-anything-but-adult-ly y'rs,

Steve

Footnotes: 
[1]  Yes, I read his post where he explains what he meant, but this is
what I would have said without reading it, I'm pretty sure.

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Jambunathan K]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:

>  > > but if you have a patch that makes things work better, I'm all ears.
>  > 
>  > IME, this is a polite way of saying STFU.
>
> That's rude and unjustified, unless you are very experienced in

It' rude and unjustified only if you haven't understood the context in
which I said it.  

There is an element of mistrust between me and Emacs devel mailing list
- nothing new to the regulars of this list - and I see it reflected in
*some* conversations that I have with some of the developers here.

When someone one KNOWS that I have CANCELLED my assignments on paper and
still says "SEND A PATCH", it is my responsibility to clarify what he
meant.  Which I did.

> dealing with the foibles of X Window System window managers.

Read my post again.  I didn't thump my chest nor did I pound Juanma's.

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Jambunathan K writes:

 > When someone one KNOWS that I have CANCELLED my assignments on
 > paper

There you go again.  Get it through your head: nobody is going to
bother about your politics in answering your technical posts.  You're
not that important to anybody except you (at least, I hope you're that
important to yourself), so *you* should do that bothering about your
assignments etc.

Nor does cancelling your "future" assignments mean that you can't do
assignments on a patch by patch basis.  So if you're unwilling to
hypothetically assign a hypothetical patch, you're pretty much going
to have to say so with respect to each one.

 > > dealing with the foibles of X Window System window managers.
 > 
 > Read my post again.  I didn't thump my chest nor did I pound Juanma's.

I don't have to; I remember what you wrote, and it was entirely
self-centered and rude -- as is this most recent epistle of yours that
I'm replying to.  I repeat my recommendation to you, though: read
three of another's posts before going off like that.

I could very easily be writing to myself, as many here know.  I know
what I'm talking about; my advice is good.

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Jambunathan K]

Stephen

It is rude to intervene in a conversation I have with Juanma.  You would
rather STFU.  (Most people here respond to you merely out of your
relationship with XEmacs - either as a peer or a project leader)

You asked for a clarification and gave you one.  If you are not happy
with it, keep your dis-satisfaction to yourself.

Jambunathan K.

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Jambunathan K]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:

> nobody is going to bother about your politics

I view Emacs more as an advocacy group.  Conversations - at times these
are shocking and do not proceed along expected lines - are *very*
important in the sense that if you take the conversations away then
Emacs will be just another product not "a practical means by which
certain conversations are enabled and sustained".

Politics is really about conversations across different "interest
groups".

If I agree with you, it is not conversation just CJ-ing.  I beg to
differ, sir.

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 5:47 AM, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:

> When someone one KNOWS that I have CANCELLED my assignments on paper and
> still says "SEND A PATCH", it is my responsibility to clarify what he
> meant.  Which I did.

I didn't KNOW that you had CANCELLED your assignments on paper,
because I do not have an habit of memorizing political disagreements
and fights in emacs-devel (or elsewhere). So you're assuming the worst
from my comment, and are arrogant enough to "know" what I meant and
"clarify" it instead of letting my words speak for me.

    J

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Jambunathan K]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> So you're assuming the worst from my comment

I asked "Did you say STFU".  You said "No".  The conversation ended
there.

Then a clown comes and calls me rude.  Now we are talking totally
different thing.

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:

> Then a clown comes and calls me rude.

Calling Stephen a clown is rude, and anyway, he was right: you were
rude, and continue to be so.

    J

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Jambunathan K]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

>> Then a clown comes and calls me rude.
>
> Calling Stephen a clown is rude,

Stephen Turnbull feels self-important enough to come in the middle of a
conversation.  His unwarranted intrusion is definitely not polite
manners.

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:

> Stephen Turnbull feels self-important enough to come in the middle of a
> conversation.  His unwarranted intrusion is definitely not polite
> manners.

This is a public list, so a public discussion. Stephen's intervention
is not: a) an intrusion, b) "unwarranted", c) unpolite. If you want
private discussions, write private e-mail.

    J

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@xemacs.org> wrote:
> Jambunathan K writes:

> IOW, when Juanma says "unless you have a patch", he's saying "I've
> thought hard about this and don't know how to do better, but I
> wouldn't be surprised if somebody -- including you -- has a better
> way.  Please teach me!"[1]

100% correct.

    J

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Jambunathan K]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> 100% correct.

We should just foucs on the suggestion I made.

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:

> We should just foucs on the suggestion I made.

Why?

   J

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Jambunathan K]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

>> We should just foucs on the suggestion I made.
>
> Why?

OK, Come over for tea then.  

We can talk about lots of interesting things and boring things under sun
like ...

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:

> OK, Come over for tea then.
>
> We can talk about lots of interesting things and boring things under sun
> like ...

You were the one to bring extra-technical context here by assuming I
meant what I didn't mean. So don't be surprised that other people
comments on it.

    J

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Jarek Czekalski]

W dniu 2013-11-10 18:40, Jambunathan K pisze:
> IME, this is a polite way of saying STFU.

Please don't use such words or acronyms on this technical public mailing 
list. I mean the F word. There are many places in the internet where you 
may use it freely without hiding it in this way. Please don't do it here.

I am not going to discuss that subject. Just wanted to let you know, 
that there are more people considering this rude and unacceptable.

http://producingoss.com/en/producingoss.html#prevent-rudeness

Thank you,
Jarek

Re: Annoying (frameset bug?): desktop-mode and maxmized frame

[Jambunathan K]

Jarek Czekalski <jarekczek@poczta.onet.pl> writes:

>> IME, this is a polite way of saying STFU.
>
> Please don't use such words or acronyms on this technical public
> mailing list. 

Ok.

> I mean the F word.

Sorry.