From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: desktop.el: autosave? Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:18:38 -0500 Message-ID: References: <8763zjfe0v.fsf@jurta.org> <87mysridxt.fsf@jurta.org> <20071206153806.GA20731@www.trapp.net> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1197048110 10429 80.91.229.12 (7 Dec 2007 17:21:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 17:21:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: juri@jurta.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rrt@sc3d.org To: tomas@tuxteam.de Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 07 18:21:59 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1J0gti-0001kQ-KK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:21:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0gtR-0008WQ-KB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:21:41 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J0gqW-0007NI-Gg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:18:40 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J0gqV-0007Mf-FE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:18:39 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0gqV-0007MZ-BE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:18:39 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1J0gqV-0000ke-5O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:18:39 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1J0gqU-0000kK-GM; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:18:38 -0500 In-reply-to: <20071206153806.GA20731@www.trapp.net> (tomas@tuxteam.de) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:84837 Archived-At: > Why do you want to save at such long intervals? Is there a performance > problem with just using the idle timer? [...] Disk spin-up on laaptops comes to mind. The longer the intervals the longer bettery (and disk!) life. That is a valid argument. So I guess it makes sense to have a certain minimum time between saves, as well as a certain maximum time. The minimum time could be implemented by a real time timer which activates the idle timer. The maximum time could be implemented by another real time timer which directly causes a save. When a save happens it should reinitialize all the timers That argument applies to any auto-save, not just desktop. I'm trying to work out why one would want one interval for auto-save and another for desktop save. That is true. Should we have this feature for auto-saves too?