From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#34911: 26.1; doc about lock file names Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 22:23:49 +0200 Message-ID: <83ef72txyi.fsf@gnu.org> References: <<>> <<<83bm27uzbr.fsf@gnu.org>>> <> <<83r2b2u3j4.fsf@gnu.org>> Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="112148"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: 34911@debbugs.gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 19 21:25:28 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h6LIe-000T4l-OF for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 21:25:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35757 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h6LId-0001cn-NA for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 16:25:27 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:34429) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h6LIP-0001af-OO for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 16:25:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h6LIN-0004e3-Fz for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 16:25:13 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:37390) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h6LID-0004a8-SI for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 16:25:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h6LID-0002Lx-Mh for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 16:25:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 20:25:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 34911 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 34911-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B34911.15530270588976 (code B ref 34911); Tue, 19 Mar 2019 20:25:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 34911) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Mar 2019 20:24:18 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50934 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h6LHW-0002Ki-Au for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 16:24:18 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:47936) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h6LHU-0002KP-Ht for 34911@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 16:24:16 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:36854) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h6LHE-0003sU-BE; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 16:24:03 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2861 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1h6LH9-0005IA-Kl; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 16:23:57 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Drew Adams on Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:15:00 -0700 (PDT)) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.51.188.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:156518 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:15:00 -0700 (PDT) > From: Drew Adams > Cc: 34911@debbugs.gnu.org > > > Then maybe we need to change the default value, but that's a separate > > issue. AFAIU, the bug report was about documentation. > > Yes, improving the default value is welcome (and needed). > But currently it is unchanged. As a result there is a > doc bug because what the doc says about the default value > is incorrect. No, I don't see that it does. At most, it says something that is not 100% accurate, in some rare cases. > > > Does this clarify what I meant by "the default value only > > > approximately matches auto-save files (and lock files?)"? > > > > Yes, but I don't necessarily see that as a problem. > > Why not? Because the issues sound mostly theoretical to me.