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

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 22:46:09 +0200

> From: Michael Heerdegen <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked],  [email-masked],  [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?

You are rushing forward too fast, IMO.  Just yesterday you said the
feature was highly experimental.  Let's have it on by default for a
while, before we decide; meanwhile people will at least have a fire
escape.