From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dave Abrahams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Proposed patch: allow user to disable lockfile creation Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:29:38 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87ei1bqi8p.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1312008686 4229 80.91.229.12 (30 Jul 2011 06:51:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 06:51:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: johnw@newartisans.com, theophilusx@gmail.com, lennart.borgman@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, schwab@linux-m68k.org, stephen@xemacs.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jul 30 08:51:20 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 1Qn3OJ-0002Ir-S9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 08:51:20 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37505 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qn3OI-0003yl-VB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 02:51:18 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:34305) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qn0FH-0001xW-Ek for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:29:48 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qn0FF-00076D-FM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:29:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-vx0-f169.google.com ([209.85.220.169]:35384) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qn0FE-00074N-W0; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:29:45 -0400 Original-Received: by vxg38 with SMTP id 38so4067037vxg.0 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:29:41 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.52.95.241 with SMTP id dn17mr2178191vdb.186.1311996581398; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:29:41 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from pluto.luannocracy.com (207-172-223-249.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.static.cable.rcn.com [207.172.223.249]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ed4sm395120vdb.33.2011.07.29.20.29.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by pluto.luannocracy.com (Postfix, from userid 501) id CBB2B8629AF; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:29:38 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Fri, 29 Jul 2011 19:40:30 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/23.3 (darwin) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.220.169 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 02:51:16 -0400 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:142506 Archived-At: on Fri Jul 29 2011, Richard Stallman wrote: > It's actually more than that. The scheme is simultaneously > over-cautious and yet full of holes. > > So what? It still does a very useful job, providing advance warning > about simultaneous editing in many cases. > > It's predicated on the idea that > everybody who might touch the file simultaneously is using Emacs, > > No such assumption is made, because Emacs does not depend on this > feature to function every time. > > The advance warning feature functions if the other person uses Emacs. > That's better than nothing. > > Furthermore, Emacs is perfectly capable of telling me when that has > happened before I save... at least it seems to work pretty darned > reliably. > > That is why the advance warning feature does not need to be 100% > dependable. It is an added convenience. It is convenient to get the > warning before you start editing, rather than only when you try to > save the file. I'm sure that depends on your perspective about what's convenient. The advance warning feature may be convenient for you, but for me (and apparently I'm not alone) it's a nuisance. My patch simply allows people to turn this feature off if they have the same experience as I do. Is there some reason it can't be accepted? -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com