Subject: bug#15797: 24.3.50; Info: Mention cache-long-scans

From: Michael Heerdegen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 19:50:03 +0100

Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]> writes:

> > From: Michael Heerdegen <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]>,
> > [email-masked], [email-masked]
> > Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 19:02:11 +0100
> > 
> > BTW, when cache-long-scans t works now, is there any benefit in setting
> > it nil?
>
> We will shortly turn it on by default, as you see from the rest of
> this discussion.

Sorry, you misunderstood.  What I meant was: do we (perspectively) need
a variable at all, when a nil value only has downsides?  Why should
anybody want to configure this variable to nil (the default value is t
now) when it has only disadvantages?  That's what I meant.

Michael.