From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Undo-limit default Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 03:12:12 +0100 Message-ID: References: <873ah0n4xc.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1228615954 14734 80.91.229.12 (7 Dec 2008 02:12:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 02:12:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Chong Yidong" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 07 03:13:37 2008 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 1L999L-0004tq-9J for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2008 03:13:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53410 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L9989-0001Dg-It for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:12:21 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L9984-0001DX-4j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:12:16 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L9983-0001DD-E8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:12:15 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53092 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L9983-0001D7-02 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:12:15 -0500 Original-Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.154]:33174) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L9982-0008OY-Fv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:12:14 -0500 Original-Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l26so441372fgb.30 for ; Sat, 06 Dec 2008 18:12:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=81f8poT7/t6up7XnrY2vS4Uy4N6cpq6uOtdPkK6glOg=; b=W6xuWvXdJQOwbd3l+ppKJ1vuPgMdFsC6CLPeQGL9VWecJmhARolio8BDXrnaQ7O0ko TCd9C2p53RgOVhn/s2d0/bZ0jwNKNDPwSz1oPR9r45UlrHv1OvRsSlrqgQK0gM/bie9w vE037GUc8XIr/TBaVl+Lt3oQgNkpH6PUD/1sQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=ouUGwwJPkuH7ycRuDdyUreLD2BhR6l/sDqjVQScU+toQKiDJRiROsl83RwrBoCde76 BtvEgVPsI3zxozCi4lcYsKz0AefGM56qL8aWzj+mSfrmggIdqMJei2AjTGgouVgBhJnL 0tF2kJ4CZ215x6RoOC+G70JvBGvBWcdAy1i2k= Original-Received: by 10.86.70.3 with SMTP id s3mr1691956fga.25.1228615932896; Sat, 06 Dec 2008 18:12:12 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.86.99.19 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 18:12:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <873ah0n4xc.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:106641 Archived-At: On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 2:35 AM, Chong Yidong wrote: > A user reported bug#1501 after inadvertently encountering the undo > limit. The default is 20kb. Does anyone on this list find this too > low, considering how much memory computers possess these days? How much memory does that consume? > (I personally don't feel strongly about this either way, but I can see > how it can be surprising to users. These days, other programs seem to > store much more undo information.) Emacs should be best, shouldn't it? Seriously, if it is surprising to users isn't it to low then?