From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Uhm... weird frame behaviour Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:39:28 -0400 Message-ID: References: <4E6C80BF.2060002@gmx.at> <4E6DCB0A.4060605@gmx.at> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1315834784 14360 80.91.229.12 (12 Sep 2011 13:39:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:39:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andy Moreton Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Sep 12 15:39:39 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 1R36ja-00007x-Qs for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:39:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39099 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R36ja-00073g-3W for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:39:38 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:48428) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R36jW-00073T-WA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:39:36 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R36jR-0007Qf-47 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:39:34 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:49616) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R36jR-0007Qb-1O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:39:29 -0400 Original-Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R36jQ-0002h7-VP; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:39:28 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Andy Moreton on Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:32:57 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.10 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:143932 Archived-At: > From: Andy Moreton > Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:32:57 +0100 > > I think Lars would like the previous behaviour, where some buffer is chosen > for display (which buffer is not important). > > I'd like this fixed too, as frames being randomly deleted is > disconcerting to say the least. > > >> Killing a buffer has never deleted a frame before. > > > > See the thread on bug#9419 for an explanation and how to > > disable the behavior. > > Emacs previously did not delete frames is this way, so it is a > regression and thus a bug to be fixed. > > If configuration is required to fix this behaviour, then the default > setting is wrong and needs to be changed. There's a certain conflict here between two groups of users: those who set pop-up-frames non-nil, and those who don't. The former want the current default, while most of the latter I suspect would want the previous behavior, maybe out of habit, maybe for some other reason. We need to find a good way of giving each group the default they want.