From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stephen Berman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Question about handling file deletion Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:22:44 +0200 Message-ID: <87zjud5aej.fsf@rosalinde.fritz.box> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1372249375 1743 80.91.229.3 (26 Jun 2013 12:22:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:22:55 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 26 14:22:55 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UrokR-0001dQ-CN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:22:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53971 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UrokQ-0007ku-VR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:22:54 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36324) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UrokL-0007ge-G1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:22:53 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UrokI-00082r-OX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:22:49 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]:49884) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UrokI-00082h-Fc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:22:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.35]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0McTJ0-1Ua9Mz1cNU-00Hike for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:22:45 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 26 Jun 2013 12:22:45 -0000 Original-Received: from i59F57B02.versanet.de (EHLO rosalinde.fritz.box) [89.245.123.2] by mail.gmx.net (mp035) with SMTP; 26 Jun 2013 14:22:45 +0200 X-Authenticated: #20778731 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18OZalfuOMO6Ry5OancSwDtOihd6y6Kw3Wo8esg5U OyvemoTjXPbxUN User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 212.227.15.19 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:161089 Archived-At: If a package provides functionality for deleting files used by it, is it considered a bug in the package if it does not handle the situation where a user deletes such files using a command outside of the package and this causes errors when using the package which don't arise if the package file-deletion functionality is used? I'm faced with this issue in the new version of todo-mode.el (see bug#14688). If someone deletes a todo file using e.g. Dired and then gets an error in Todo mode and reports it as a bug, is it kosher for me reply "If it hurts, don't do that. Use todo-delete-file." and close the bug? (That command doesn't actually exist yet, but I think it will be much easier to implement than trying to handle the result of deleting todo files outside of Todo mode.) Steve Berman