From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com>
To: Gregory Heytings <gregory@heytings.org>
Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 51993@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#51993: 29.0.50; [PATCH] Killing emacsclient terminal with `server-stop-automatically' doesn't prompt to save files
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 14:08:05 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1623621b-d2a6-a68c-ac28-cdd371886b11@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <890d44ded2fa8ff77ab2@heytings.org>
On 11/23/2021 12:37 PM, Gregory Heytings wrote:
>
>>> This is not a bug, this is the intented behavior of that feature
>>
>> I started that discussion (and participated throughout it), and I
>> don't think we actually agreed that this was the intended behavior.
>>
>
> This is the behavior I intended (and described in the docstring and
> manual), if you prefer. And you did not make further comments in
> bug#51377, which can be interpreted as a kind of agreement.
Unfortunately, I was sidetracked by other things and didn't have a
chance to comment before Lars merged the patch. Since it had already
been merged, I thought it best to follow up in a separate bug once I had
made concise steps to reproduce the issue and a patch to fix it.
>> I should stress that the case I brought up above is just a
>> counterexample to show a problem with a previous implementation strategy
>>
>
> Which problem?
Prior to that comment, your proposed implementation would kill Emacs on
a timer when there were no non-daemon frames left, which could result in
unsaved changes to files being lost. I replied to point that out and
showed some steps to reproduce it:
<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-emacs/2021-10/msg02163.html>.
>> The current behavior on Emacs 29 certainly isn't what I personally
>> intended when bringing the idea up on emacs-devel.
>>
>
> Is the current behavior of Emacs 29 with my patch and
> (server-stop-automatically 'kill-terminal) still not what you want? If
> not, what is missing?
If I'm understanding your patch, the behavior I'm looking for is
essentially a combination of `kill-terminal' and `delete-last-frame'. I
may be misunderstanding it though, since the call tree in your patch
confuses me a bit: with `kill-terminal',
`server-save-buffers-kill-terminal` calls
`server-stop-automatically--handle-delete-frame', which then calls
`server-save-buffers-kill-terminal' again.
One of my other goals in my patch was to simplify the logic in
`server-save-buffers-kill-terminal' and
`server-stop-automatically--handle-delete-frame' somewhat. Rather than
to have `server-stop-automatically--handle-delete-frame' check if it was
called by `save-buffers-kill-terminal', I found that the implementation
was simpler (to me, anyway) if that logic was lifted up into
`server-save-buffers-kill-terminal'.
One benefit of this simplification is that it causes fewer changes in
behavior compared to not using `server-stop-automatically'. For example,
normally when a user kills an emacsclient terminal, Emacs will prompt
about saving files *before* deleting any frames. This is nice because it
allows the user to back out by pressing C-g, leaving Emacs in (almost)
the same state it was previously. My patch handles that and allows the
user to press C-g and leave all the current frames open.
With your patch in this bug, using `kill-terminal' and pressing C-x C-c
will close all frames for the current client but the current one, and
only then prompt the user to save buffers. Thus, pressing C-g will leave
the user with only that last client frame still open.
(Note: to test this behavior, you probably need multiple clients open as
I outlined in the first post to this bug.)
>> I'm concerned that we're now up to 4 different behaviors, when I think
>> two of them are just the result of a miscommunication between the two
>> of us.
>
> They are not, AFAICS. The four behaviors are four reasonable options,
> each of which can (and is) described in a short paragraph, and
> corresponds to a different user preference. I see no reason to remove
> any of the current three behaviors because of an unspecified "problem".
> Especially given that all these behaviors are implemented in only ~50
> lines of Lisp.
I've specified the problems. I can try to clarify if there's any
confusion though. This bug is one such problem.
I don't think that a user who opts in to stopping the Emacs daemon
automatically is *also* opting in to changing the behavior of whether
Emacs will prompt about saving files when killing a (non-last) client.
Since there are other clients, the daemon won't be killed, and so the
behavior should be identical to what happens without
`server-stop-automatically'. As a user, I would find it very strange
that enabling `server-stop-automatically' would change Emacs' behavior
in ways *other than* stopping the server in certain cases.
Of course, a user may indeed want to be able to kill a client (but not
the daemon) without being prompted to save files, but I think that's
independent of whether the daemon should be stopped when the last client
exits. If users *do* want this behavior, we could add a totally separate
option for it; this would allow users who don't want to be prompted but
also don't want `server-stop-automatically' to use it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-23 22:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-20 4:29 bug#51993: 29.0.50; [PATCH] Killing emacsclient terminal with `server-stop-automatically' doesn't prompt to save files Jim Porter
2021-11-20 7:13 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-11-23 9:48 ` Gregory Heytings
2021-11-23 18:25 ` Jim Porter
2021-11-23 20:37 ` Gregory Heytings
2021-11-23 22:08 ` Jim Porter [this message]
2021-11-23 22:49 ` Gregory Heytings
2021-11-23 23:42 ` Jim Porter
2021-11-23 23:59 ` Gregory Heytings
2021-11-24 1:10 ` Jim Porter
2021-11-29 5:39 ` Jim Porter
2021-11-29 12:41 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-11-29 13:40 ` Gregory Heytings
2021-11-29 19:31 ` Jim Porter
2022-01-01 0:11 ` Jim Porter
2022-09-09 17:55 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2022-09-09 18:04 ` Jim Porter
2022-10-09 22:09 ` Jim Porter
2022-10-10 6:04 ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-10-20 3:14 ` Jim Porter
2022-10-20 6:23 ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-10-21 5:51 ` Jim Porter
2022-10-21 6:38 ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-10-22 3:46 ` Jim Porter
2022-10-22 6:57 ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-10-25 3:10 ` Jim Porter
2022-10-30 22:32 ` Jim Porter
2022-11-29 5:31 ` Jim Porter
2022-12-01 17:29 ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-12-02 1:09 ` bug#51993: 29.0.50; [PATCH for 29.1] " Jim Porter
2022-12-02 14:10 ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-12-02 21:33 ` Jim Porter
2022-12-04 17:56 ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-12-04 22:26 ` Jim Porter
2022-12-06 22:20 ` Jim Porter
2022-12-02 1:42 ` bug#51993: 29.0.50; [PATCH explanation] " Jim Porter
2022-12-02 14:31 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-11-29 19:12 ` bug#51993: 29.0.50; [PATCH] " Jim Porter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1623621b-d2a6-a68c-ac28-cdd371886b11@gmail.com \
--to=jporterbugs@gmail.com \
--cc=51993@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=gregory@heytings.org \
--cc=larsi@gnus.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.