From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#21015: 25.0.50; Shell is now displayed in another window, what about EShell? Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 12:50:28 +0200 Message-ID: <87a7craljf.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> References: <87mvz5cuo2.fsf@openmailbox.org> <87lfwcd3rz.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> <83a7csgiwa.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="183217"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: 21015@debbugs.gnu.org, markkarpov@openmailbox.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Aug 02 12:51:15 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 (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1htV9S-000lOU-Db for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2019 12:51:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33516 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1htV9R-0005YJ-Ec for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2019 06:51:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44870) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1htV9N-0005Y6-2K for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2019 06:51:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1htV9M-0002jf-1l for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2019 06:51:05 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:47034) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1htV9L-0002jb-Ub for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2019 06:51:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1htV9K-0002Ar-4p for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2019 06:51:03 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 10:51:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 21015 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 21015-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B21015.15647430378312 (code B ref 21015); Fri, 02 Aug 2019 10:51:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 21015) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Aug 2019 10:50:37 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55851 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1htV8s-00029w-Pc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2019 06:50:36 -0400 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:56804) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1htV8p-00029n-V0 for 21015@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2019 06:50:33 -0400 Original-Received: from 77.18.62.220.tmi.telenormobil.no ([77.18.62.220] helo=sandy) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1htV8m-0001Gu-Pq; Fri, 02 Aug 2019 12:50:31 +0200 In-Reply-To: <83a7csgiwa.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 02 Aug 2019 09:51:01 +0300") 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:164317 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> I think it would make sense to make `M-x eshell' consistent with `M-x >> shell' on this point. Does anybody have any objections? > > That's backward-incompatible, so I can only agree to it as an optional > behavior, not as the default. > > (Eshell is conceptually a very different beast from a system shell.) OK; then I don't think it's worth doing (it's more work for users to set that option than to just create a new window manually, really), and I'm closing this bug report. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no