Trouble with texinfo-multiple-files-update

Trouble with texinfo-multiple-files-update

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, Emacs!

I'm adding a new node to the Emacs manual.  I've typed in the new text
and updated the local menus inside search.texi with C-c C-u RET
`texinfo-make-menu'.  No great problem.

Then I come to update the main menu in the top file emacs.texi.  I was
unfortunate enough to try out C-u M-x texinfo-multiple-files-update.
This has loaded 44 .texi files needlessly into my Emacs, marking almost
all of them as "changed", though I suspect these "changes" are all null.

So now I've got the hassle of getting rid of these 44 "changed" buffers,
when all I really wanted to do was update the main menu.  It would have
been less work just to update the main menu by hand.

Why is there no decent command to update the main menu?

What do other people do when they want to update the main menu?

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: Trouble with texinfo-multiple-files-update

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 12:14:19 +0000
> From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
> 
> Then I come to update the main menu in the top file emacs.texi.  I was
> unfortunate enough to try out C-u M-x texinfo-multiple-files-update.
> This has loaded 44 .texi files needlessly into my Emacs

This command updates the master menu by looking at all the nodes in
the manual.  Since the manual consists of 56 files, how do you want
Emacs to be able to update the master menu without visiting all those
files?  The command also updates the top-level menu in each file,
again something that is impossible without visiting them.

> marking almost all of them as "changed", though I suspect these
> "changes" are all null.

Why do you care about the fact that they are modified?  Emacs does
that elsewhere, e.g., when you "M-q" in a paragraph that is already
filled.  You don't become nervous then, do you?  So why here?

> So now I've got the hassle of getting rid of these 44 "changed" buffers,
> when all I really wanted to do was update the main menu.  It would have
> been less work just to update the main menu by hand.

I hope it's not too late to convince you not to "get rid" of these
buffers.  Instead, save them all, and then invoke "bzr diff".  I'm
sure you will see that only things that need to be changed actually
did.

> Why is there no decent command to update the main menu?

There is, it is called texinfo-multiple-files-update.  You will see in
emacs.texi that it was actually used on the manual, because there's a
comment there which tells you what NOT to do to avoid screwing it up.

> What do other people do when they want to update the main menu?

texinfo-multiple-files-update.

P.S.  We seem to have this kind of conversation every few years; e.g.,
see http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=2975.

Re: Trouble with texinfo-multiple-files-update

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, Eli.

On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 06:42:00PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 12:14:19 +0000
> > From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>

> > Then I come to update the main menu in the top file emacs.texi.  I was
> > unfortunate enough to try out C-u M-x texinfo-multiple-files-update.
> > This has loaded 44 .texi files needlessly into my Emacs

> This command updates the master menu by looking at all the nodes in
> the manual.  Since the manual consists of 56 files, how do you want
> Emacs to be able to update the master menu without visiting all those
> files?

By successively visiting them in temporary buffers and then killing them.

> The command also updates the top-level menu in each file, again
> something that is impossible without visiting them.

Yes.  I would prefer a command that Does One Thing And Does It Well,
simply creating the main menu from the existing entries in the other
files.  There's no harm having an option to update those too, though.

> > marking almost all of them as "changed", though I suspect these
> > "changes" are all null.

> Why do you care about the fact that they are modified?  Emacs does
> that elsewhere, e.g., when you "M-q" in a paragraph that is already
> filled.  You don't become nervous then, do you?  So why here?

I'm not so much nervous as irritated - I've got to deal with 54
"changed" buffers, otherwise they'll be hanging around my desktop
forever.  And I don't want to save them, since that will overwrite the
files' timestamps.  I eventually killed them with C-k (54 times) in the
buffer-menu and had to answer `yes-or-no-p' (also 54 times)

> > So now I've got the hassle of getting rid of these 44 "changed" buffers,
> > when all I really wanted to do was update the main menu.  It would have
> > been less work just to update the main menu by hand.

> I hope it's not too late to convince you not to "get rid" of these
> buffers.  Instead, save them all, and then invoke "bzr diff".  I'm
> sure you will see that only things that need to be changed actually
> did.

Yes.  I'm sure I would.

> > Why is there no decent command to update the main menu?

> There is, it is called texinfo-multiple-files-update.  You will see in
> emacs.texi that it was actually used on the manual, because there's a
> comment there which tells you what NOT to do to avoid screwing it up.

> > What do other people do when they want to update the main menu?

> texinfo-multiple-files-update.

I think, for a small change to the main menu, I'll just do it by hand
next time round.  It's less typing.  Obviously somebody (Glenn?) will
regenerate the whole menu whilst doing a release, and that seems to be
what texinfo-multiple-files-update was designed for.

> P.S.  We seem to have this kind of conversation every few years; e.g.,
> see http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=2975.

:-).  That thread had disappeared over my memory horizon.  But at least
it wasn't about texinfo-multiple-files-update.

Thanks for the reply.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: Trouble with texinfo-multiple-files-update

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 18:05:32 +0000
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
> 
> > This command updates the master menu by looking at all the nodes in
> > the manual.  Since the manual consists of 56 files, how do you want
> > Emacs to be able to update the master menu without visiting all those
> > files?
> 
> By successively visiting them in temporary buffers and then killing them.

It can't, because of this:

> > The command also updates the top-level menu in each file, again
> > something that is impossible without visiting them.

> Yes.  I would prefer a command that Does One Thing And Does It Well,
> simply creating the main menu from the existing entries in the other
> files.  There's no harm having an option to update those too, though.

That's what that command does: its default is to update the top-level
menu in each individual file that is part of the manual.  Each file is
a full chapter.  The updating of the master menu is the optional
behavior, invoked with C-u.

> > Why do you care about the fact that they are modified?  Emacs does
> > that elsewhere, e.g., when you "M-q" in a paragraph that is already
> > filled.  You don't become nervous then, do you?  So why here?
> 
> I'm not so much nervous as irritated - I've got to deal with 54
> "changed" buffers, otherwise they'll be hanging around my desktop
> forever.  And I don't want to save them, since that will overwrite the
> files' timestamps.

Why do you care about files' timestamps?  bzr doesn't, and neither
should you, because you will need to run "make info" anyway, due to
the fact that you added a node to the manual.  What am I missing?

> > P.S.  We seem to have this kind of conversation every few years; e.g.,
> > see http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=2975.
> 
> :-).  That thread had disappeared over my memory horizon.  But at least
> it wasn't about texinfo-multiple-files-update.

Actually, it was about that as well.

Re: Trouble with texinfo-multiple-files-update

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, Eli.

On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 09:23:41PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 18:05:32 +0000
> > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> > From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>

[ .... ]

> > Yes.  I would prefer a command that Does One Thing And Does It Well,
> > simply creating the main menu from the existing entries in the other
> > files.  There's no harm having an option to update those too, though.

> That's what that command does: its default is to update the top-level
> menu in each individual file that is part of the manual.  Each file is
> a full chapter.  The updating of the master menu is the optional
> behavior, invoked with C-u.

Yes.  My point is, why can't the updating of the master menu, which is a
coherent action in its own right, be performed independently of updating
the individual *.texi's?

> > > Why do you care about the fact that they are modified?  Emacs does
> > > that elsewhere, e.g., when you "M-q" in a paragraph that is already
> > > filled.  You don't become nervous then, do you?  So why here?

> > I'm not so much nervous as irritated - I've got to deal with 54
> > "changed" buffers, otherwise they'll be hanging around my desktop
> > forever.  And I don't want to save them, since that will overwrite the
> > files' timestamps.

> Why do you care about files' timestamps?

I just do.  I find the question rather strange.  Who wouldn't care about
timestamps?  They provide a rapid, convenient insight into the activity
in the directory, in fact in any directory.  For example, I see most
files.texi unchanged since 2013-01-25 (when I presumably cloned the
repository), and several at various points since (when I updated the
repo).  killing.texi hasn't been changed at all, but windows.texi was
changed as recently as May.

> bzr doesn't, and neither should you, because you will need to run "make
> info" anyway, due to the fact that you added a node to the manual.
> What am I missing?

I'm not sure - I think we're talking at cross purposes, somehow.

[ .... ]

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: Trouble with texinfo-multiple-files-update

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 19:16:07 +0000
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
> 
> > That's what that command does: its default is to update the top-level
> > menu in each individual file that is part of the manual.  Each file is
> > a full chapter.  The updating of the master menu is the optional
> > behavior, invoked with C-u.
> 
> Yes.  My point is, why can't the updating of the master menu, which is a
> coherent action in its own right, be performed independently of updating
> the individual *.texi's?

History, I suppose.

> > Why do you care about files' timestamps?
> 
> I just do.  I find the question rather strange.  Who wouldn't care about
> timestamps?  They provide a rapid, convenient insight into the activity
> in the directory, in fact in any directory.  For example, I see most
> files.texi unchanged since 2013-01-25 (when I presumably cloned the
> repository), and several at various points since (when I updated the
> repo).  killing.texi hasn't been changed at all, but windows.texi was
> changed as recently as May.

That just means you use bzr very little.  The moment you revert some
file, its time stamp changes to the moment of the revert.  So any
significant VCS activity messes up the time stamps.  IOW, the time
stamps are insignificant.  You should become used to not worrying
about them.

Trouble with texinfo-multiple-files-update

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Alan Mackenzie writes:

 > Then I come to update the main menu in the top file emacs.texi.  I was
 > unfortunate enough to try out C-u M-x texinfo-multiple-files-update.
 > This has loaded 44 .texi files needlessly into my Emacs, marking almost
 > all of them as "changed", though I suspect these "changes" are all
 > null.

I suspect they're not null.  Based on my own experience, I guess what
happened is that t-m-f-u hasn't been run in a while so there were a
lot of updates.

 > So now I've got the hassle of getting rid of these 44 "changed" buffers,
 > when all I really wanted to do was update the main menu.  It would have
 > been less work just to update the main menu by hand.

No, it wouldn't, because there's an excellent chance you'd screw up
t-m-f-u and somebody would have to fix things eventually.

 > What do other people do when they want to update the main menu?

t-m-f-u followed by C-x C-b.  In XEmacs, I can't sort on the mode
AFAIK, which would be really convenient when I've got 100 other
buffers open.

Re: Trouble with texinfo-multiple-files-update

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

 > And I don't want to save them, since that will overwrite the files'
 > timestamps.

Why do you care about that?  It doesn't save any time in make.  Guess
you could use that to decide which files are oldest, but to me the
risk that internode refs would get out of date is too high.  What am I
missing?

Re: Trouble with texinfo-multiple-files-update

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, Stephen.

On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 09:29:13AM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie writes:

>  > Then I come to update the main menu in the top file emacs.texi.  I was
>  > unfortunate enough to try out C-u M-x texinfo-multiple-files-update.
>  > This has loaded 44 .texi files needlessly into my Emacs, marking almost
>  > all of them as "changed", though I suspect these "changes" are all
>  > null.

> I suspect they're not null.  Based on my own experience, I guess what
> happened is that t-m-f-u hasn't been run in a while so there were a
> lot of updates.

The abstract principle here which hasn't been addressed is that
emacs.texi is not wholly a source file - it is partly a script generated
file.  It doesn't seem entirely clear who's responsible for running this
script, texinfo_multiple_file_update.  Having added a node to
search.texi, I feel responsible for also adding an entry for it to the
main menu - but NOT for updating every menu in every file in the whole
directory.  Doing the latter would make the commit message and ChangeLog
entries very cumbersome.

>  > So now I've got the hassle of getting rid of these 44 "changed" buffers,
>  > when all I really wanted to do was update the main menu.  It would have
>  > been less work just to update the main menu by hand.

> No, it wouldn't, because there's an excellent chance you'd screw up
> t-m-f-u and somebody would have to fix things eventually.

t-m-f-u, updating, as it does, every menu in the whole manual, is
clearly intended to be run as part of the release process, and this
surely gets done.  So such screwups would be fairly temporary.

In the end, I did just update the main menu by hand, though I haven't
yet committed the change.

>  > What do other people do when they want to update the main menu?

> t-m-f-u followed by C-x C-b.  In XEmacs, I can't sort on the mode
> AFAIK, which would be really convenient when I've got 100 other
> buffers open.

I don't think you can in Emacs either.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).