From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Change `customize-save-variable' to work under "emacs -Q"? Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:12:22 +0900 Message-ID: <87ipr8t9w9.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <877h7ok9cd.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87d3hgprjb.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87r55wtget.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1310443971 7581 80.91.229.12 (12 Jul 2011 04:12:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 04:12:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Tim Cross Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 12 06:12:47 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QgUL1-0001BT-Fl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 06:12:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48877 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QgUKz-0007Jm-Ow for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:12:46 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:50288) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QgUKg-0007Jc-QP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:12:27 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QgUKf-0003Ub-Pl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:12:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mgmt1.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.223]:50626) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QgUKf-0003TX-21 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:12:25 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt1.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66AA83FA0709; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:12:17 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 030401A275C; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:12:23 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 8.1.93a under 21.5 (beta31) "ginger" cd1f8c4e81cd XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 130.158.97.223 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:141967 Archived-At: Tim Cross writes: > I have used that technique, but have run into problems with packages > that have already loaded where the variable needs to be set before > they are loaded. Granted, but that belongs to the "do what's needed to reproduce the bug" part of my workflow. I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion of *excessive* changes to the -Q environment. > The core issue I see is that -Q is useful mainly because it > establishes a standard default environment. [...] > Once we allow local customizations to be applied in this > environment, this standard base default environment no longer > exists. This may be fine, provided there is some mechanism that > makes what has been changed explicit and easy to reproduce. I think that Customize already provides some function for listing variables that are not at their default values, both Customized and "rogue" values. Its output could be added to the bug-reporter's buffer (maybe it's already there in Emacs, but XEmacs doesn't do that yet). Perhaps it should be glossed with a comment that only defcustoms can be listed this way. > Bug reporting was not meant as the central theme - it was just an > example of one thing that could be affected when you allow local > customizations to be applied in a -Q environment. OK. > What I don't want to see is one party reporting something in a -Q > environment that is not seen in another -Q environment (assuming > other things, such as platform, version etc being equal) I'm not sure I understand. Isn't that just a symptom of a poor report, ie, omitting necessary preparation for reproducing the behavior from the recipe? AIUI Lars' code is *not* going to suffer from the problem you describe: only *necessary* changes to the -Q environment will be made, and it's the reporter's responsibility, as usual, to describe them accurately. I'll let Lars speak to the details, though. > What I don't want is local customizations that are applied 'behind > the scenes' or are only applied to some things and not others. Sure.