From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juri Linkov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#51883: 29.0.50; Command to get accidentally deleted frames back Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 20:41:26 +0200 Organization: LINKOV.NET Message-ID: <86a6fuxkz1.fsf@mail.linkov.net> References: <87czn1gfb1.fsf@web.de> <838rx9zs9r.fsf@gnu.org> <87h7bxg2d8.fsf@web.de> <835ysdzq4s.fsf@gnu.org> <87czmlg1rz.fsf@web.de> <227d35a5bc25a5f57453@heytings.org> <87zgppekxe.fsf@web.de> <227d35a5bcdae0a85f4d@heytings.org> <87v90dekii.fsf@web.de> <227d35a5bc14f7b3c75c@heytings.org> <87r1b1ejif.fsf@web.de> <227d35a5bc16d5c159ac@heytings.org> <87fsrg8ep4.fsf@web.de> <87bl22n7ut.fsf@web.de> <877dcqn5kx.fsf@web.de> <86h7bur9yi.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <864k68ujbx.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <861r1aoi9i.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <867daz1jo1.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83mtjuwm8c.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="25891"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Cc: michael_heerdegen@web.de, gregory@heytings.org, 51883@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 17 19:47:37 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n9X2X-0006YA-NA for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 19:47:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49512 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n9X2U-0005Mw-Db for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 13:47:35 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:34678) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n9X08-0005MF-Rw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 13:45:09 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:55063) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n9X02-0005Ng-Ir for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 13:45:07 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1n9X02-0004Yc-HJ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 13:45:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Juri Linkov Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 18:45:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 51883 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 51883-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B51883.164244506917457 (code B ref 51883); Mon, 17 Jan 2022 18:45:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 51883) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Jan 2022 18:44:29 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47966 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1n9WzV-0004XV-Ay for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 13:44:29 -0500 Original-Received: from relay2-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.194]:50019) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1n9WzS-0004XB-DR for 51883@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 13:44:28 -0500 Original-Received: (Authenticated sender: juri@linkov.net) by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 80CAE40003; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 18:44:18 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <83mtjuwm8c.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 17 Jan 2022 15:00:35 +0200") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:224472 Archived-At: >> > I tried to use this, but undelete-frame-mode in the File menu >> > makes no sense: when you mistakenly deleted a frame, you want >> > to undelete it immediately, so you open the File menu, and >> > see the message "No way, you can't undelete the deleted frame, >> > because you were careless and not enabled a special mode". >> > >> > So the most useful case for this feature is to get the >> > accidentally deleted frame back, and it fails to do this. >> > >> > Instead, it allows undeleting 16 frames in a special mode. >> > Is there really a human that can delete 16 frames, and then >> > remember what was on the 16th frame back? >> > >> > Rereading this thread indicates that the only concern about >> > enabling this by default was the memory footprint for remembering >> > 16 frames. OTOH, this feature is really useful for remembering >> > 1 frame. So this is what should be enabled by default: >> >> It seems this is the right thing to do, so now pushed to master. > > I'm sorry, you cannot do that. We discussed this at some length and > reached certain conclusions. Then you come and in effect say those > considerations and discussions make no sense, and you know better? > Let's please respect our discussions and decisions more than that. > And if you want others to respect your opinions, please respect > theirs, even if you disagree. The feature as installed allows you to > customize it to have that mode turned on by default, so you could > easily fix your problem by doing that. > > Specifically to your main argument: it is no different from deleting a > file: unless the user took steps to configure the system to allow > undeleting deleted files, deleted files are lost forever. Moreover, > in the case of an Emacs frame, nothing of terrible importance is > actually lost: the buffers displayed in that frame are still there, > and restoring the deleted frame by hand shouldn't take more than a few > moments. > > So I reverted this changeset. Please in the future don't make such > changes unilaterally. This is not true. This is not a unilateral change. I posted a patch, then waited for comments 3 days, and when no one commented this means that everyone agreed that it's a more reasonable change, then pushed to master.