On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 3:25 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Rocky Bernstein > > Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 15:55:06 -0500 > > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > > That there is also a SHA of the text. If the text in any of those 60 > files is identical it doesn't matter for purposes > > of debugging and error location determination which one > > in the set you decide to call the source. > > If there's a SHA, why do we also need a file name? > > > I'm saying that the minuscule amount of times it will work will drown > > in the sea of times it won't. Worse, when it "doesn't work", it will > > many times produce a false alarm: the file name is different, but the > > contents was identical. > > > > If that's the case, then how is this different than what we have now? > > If it isn't different, why add the recording of file names? It does > nothing to improve the situation. > Path names give you good places to start looking for the file. And often they can quickly give information as to what's up, e.g. I am running from the stable or development branch. Or running from an Ubuntu build or a source-code build.