From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: bug in server-start Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:26:21 +0100 Message-ID: References: <18758.7352.558182.931572@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <18758.14760.572830.277734@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1229340413 3174 80.91.229.12 (15 Dec 2008 11:26:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:26:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Nick Roberts" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 15 12:27:50 2008 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 1LCBc0-0005LC-9q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:27:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51402 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LCBao-000209-Dp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 06:26:30 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LCBal-0001z0-33 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 06:26:27 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LCBai-0001uy-Dt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 06:26:26 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=34815 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LCBai-0001up-9G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 06:26:24 -0500 Original-Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.244]:18351) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LCBah-0002zH-W2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 06:26:24 -0500 Original-Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c38so1050450ana.21 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 03:26:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=FnS9KjLAFz4pxKdLRHa4Nn1XVeiHReb6BH4S8PF6CFE=; b=Bp7SxIqI4fQZx93M8eKxjNDJCrQUSbZrCLfWvTSCBBa2bjDeVDQWR53hXI0z2WISmg N3GBrg1ED/miCgYNUncfxSnvtuU/GWpOl2rVzlFC335JAv0fkCQIZTL+7Q5/L9X/9gJw 4nIAYGjAEGsxRSIYv77RtnDKBjQC6Y4QOfVEc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=IbBgsQzbJOtf5hXs69pYgEkcOiEfAuAK+E3tTVRBBWh7sbiJXlzPlUQSkP4tzhtg33 +7yfF+4aRRw6tMB2i3fq9ZDnKYrklWG+LZh27nIqwjrB7aOsqhpTCXS1FT9RrHp2k1++ bH8HldXxPsupXlCOKzo7ZD9goFrEhYdQeKJoY= Original-Received: by 10.100.164.12 with SMTP id m12mr4403848ane.144.1229340382013; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 03:26:22 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.100.13.13 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 03:26:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:106931 Archived-At: >> In contrast, I see no mention of server-force-delete, so they probably won't >> know what to do about it except remove server-start from their .emacs, or put >> it in a condition-case. Additional info: I've explained how server-force-delete would help in your case (if you want the second instance to take over the server duties). That said, server-force-delete is more of a user command. The right thing to do (so to speak) is making sure that you're not starting two instances with the same name, or that the second one refuses to start. Perhaps the current behavior of server-start when it detects a server collision, i.e. erroring out, is too harsh and what Sven Joachim proposed is better: just show a message and don't start the server. WDYT? Juanma