From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Undo-limit default Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 14:02:27 +0100 Message-ID: <493BC963.3000907@gmx.at> References: <873ah0n4xc.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1228655273 25402 80.91.229.12 (7 Dec 2008 13:07:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:07:53 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 07 14:08:59 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 1L9JNX-0003M9-6f for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2008 14:08:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45120 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L9JMM-0001v1-7V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2008 08:07:42 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L9JLI-0001EO-8D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2008 08:06:36 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L9JLG-0001DL-SQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2008 08:06:35 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43149 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L9JLG-0001D5-H7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2008 08:06:34 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:44422) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L9JLE-0004Tk-BQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2008 08:06:34 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 07 Dec 2008 13:06:22 -0000 Original-Received: from 62-47-51-238.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.51.238]) [62.47.51.238] by mail.gmx.net (mp004) with SMTP; 07 Dec 2008 14:06:22 +0100 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/xwtlGBXnxHsZdz2XGGjO1ts5LaxXJZ+G51VsXrL oghpcSaskvPdq5 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) In-Reply-To: <873ah0n4xc.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.73 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:106647 Archived-At: > 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? For some years I use '(undo-limit 200000) '(undo-outer-limit 300000) '(undo-strong-limit 300000) but I don't understand why we keep font-lock assigned properties (in particular the completely useless 'fontified property) on the undo-list. Here these usually account for more than 90% of all entries. martin