GNU bug report logs - #15797
24.3.50; Info: Mention cache-long-scans

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
Cc: 15797 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, kjambunathan <at> gmail.com
Subject: bug#15797: 24.3.50; Info: Mention cache-long-scans
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 22:46:09 +0200

> From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
> Cc: monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca,  15797 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  kjambunathan <at> gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 19:50:03 +0100
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > > From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
> > > Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
> > > 15797 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, kjambunathan <at> gmail.com
> > > 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.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.