On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 9:03 AM Michael Albinus wrote: > Ship Mints writes: > > Hi, > > tramp-cleanup-some-buffers is intended as frame to be customized for > different use cases. > > > I did look. What concerned me was that tramp-cleanup-some-buffers-hook > > could be altered by users, where tramp-cleanup-bufferless-connections > > does one and only one thing without interference from potentially > > modified hooks. > > You can write a wrapper function for your package, which binds > tramp-cleanup-some-buffers-hook with proper functions, and which calls > tramp-cleanup-some-buffers then. > > > It looks to me, though, that tramp-cleanup-some-buffers does things > > differently. > > It is a new command of Emacs 30, so it is not very known to > users. There's much room to customize it for different use cases. > > > It does (tramp-cleanup-all-connections) which is not > > what I want. I want only to kill unused tramp connections, not all > > tramp connections. > > I've seen this also today. Hmm, perhaps we can move this call to a hook > function, added by default, which you can suppress in your own binding > of tramp-cleanup-some-buffers-hook. > > > It also kills user buffers which is not what my > > function does--it kills only tramp-related objects not user buffers. > > This should also be configurable. > > > I could take a second look today, but it doesn't seem like they solve > > the same problem? > > Yes, please do. I'm interested in pimp up this command with alternative > scenarios. > I spent some more time on this and I think there's an "impedance mismatch" between cleanup-some-buffers and cleaning up unused connections. I'm finding it cumbersome to mix the two as I have to move back and forth between "buffer space" and "connection space" to achieve connection cleanup. My original patch seems like the cleanest approach, and can be made shorter with a few tramp utility function changes. Would you like to see a patch based on those?