From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Mar 24 14:21:40 2017 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Mar 2017 18:21:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42739 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1crTqF-0008Mh-QE for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:21:40 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:57698) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1crTqE-0008MV-RP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:21:39 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1crTq9-0007es-0P for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:21:33 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:53631) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1crTq8-0007en-Ti for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:21:32 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48661) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1crTq7-00077J-Qg for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:21:32 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1crTq3-0007dp-Qr for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:21:31 -0400 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:28650) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1crTq3-0007dX-Ix for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:21:27 -0400 Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id v2OIL8GR011259 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:21:09 GMT Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v2OIL840024604 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:21:08 GMT Received: from abhmp0009.oracle.com (abhmp0009.oracle.com [141.146.116.15]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v2OIL7Md019751 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:21:08 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <1355208c-862e-4c1e-8218-a2efdf66142c@default> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:21:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Drew Adams To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 25.1; `dired-pop-to-buffer' warning X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 12.0.6753.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -3.5 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.5 (---) If code uses function `dired-pop-to-buffer', this is the byte-compiler warning you get: `dired-pop-to-buffer' is an obsolete function (as of 24.3); use `dired-mark-pop-up' instead. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That is a ridiculous warning. `dired-mark-pop-up' is about acting on each of the marked files and directories. `dired-pop-to-buffer' pops up a single buffer. There is zero connection between `dired-mark-pop-up' and `dired-pop-to-buffer'. In GNU Emacs 25.1.1 (x86_64-w64-mingw32) of 2016-11-15 Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601 Configured using: `configure --without-dbus --without-compress-install 'CFLAGS=3D-O2 -static -g3'' From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jul 26 07:13:25 2019 Received: (at 26243) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Jul 2019 11:13:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40970 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hqyA8-0007ku-Lw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:13:24 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:59992) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hqyA6-0007kh-E5 for 26243@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:13:23 -0400 Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hqy9z-0005lQ-Jw; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 13:13:17 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Drew Adams Subject: Re: bug#26243: 25.1; `dired-pop-to-buffer' warning References: <1355208c-862e-4c1e-8218-a2efdf66142c@default> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 13:13:15 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1355208c-862e-4c1e-8218-a2efdf66142c@default> (Drew Adams's message of "Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:21:06 -0700 (PDT)") Message-ID: <87y30lm4l0.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Drew Adams writes: > If code uses function `dired-pop-to-buffer', this is the byte-compiler > warning you get: > > `dired-pop-to-buffer' is an obsolete function (as of 24.3); > use `dired-mark-pop-up' instead. > ^^^^^^^ [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 26243 Cc: Juri Linkov , 26243@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Drew Adams writes: > If code uses function `dired-pop-to-buffer', this is the byte-compiler > warning you get: > > `dired-pop-to-buffer' is an obsolete function (as of 24.3); > use `dired-mark-pop-up' instead. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > That is a ridiculous warning. `dired-mark-pop-up' is about acting on > each of the marked files and directories. `dired-pop-to-buffer' pops > up a single buffer. > > There is zero connection between `dired-mark-pop-up' and > `dired-pop-to-buffer'. Those functions seem to have little to do with each other; yes. So I've now removed the reference. It was added with a reference to bug 1806, which is a 170 message long thread which I've not read. I've Cc'd Juri (who made the change) in case the reference makes sense anyway, in which case I'll revert my change. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jul 26 07:13:28 2019 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Jul 2019 11:13:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40973 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hqyAC-0007l9-0S for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:13:28 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:60006) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hqyA8-0007kt-TU for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:13:25 -0400 Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hqyA5-0005lX-SA for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 13:13:23 +0200 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 13:13:21 +0200 Message-Id: <87wog5m4ku.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #26243 X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: tags 26243 fixed close 26243 27.1 quit Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) tags 26243 fixed close 26243 27.1 quit From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 29 11:17:07 2019 Received: (at 26243) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Jul 2019 15:17:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48973 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hs7Oc-00055T-C3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 11:17:07 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]:51149) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hs7Oa-00054o-Iw for 26243@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 11:17:05 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1564413406; bh=nB9URGQqNq+1/IiI/IAnW+VsSA70a4ObaQ7WR5rPaw8=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=YtCSN+YEuJau9xDaNZjyQ1zCjPxSRaC2QsM/vFEMY+AxSlhL4p0Fasa7W+ddV4Oha D5fsGXHUNa0MfY8eOw1Q6rMWXdZ2QoTztjoKLMrxLPSrhhKJLZB7EuvQOcTVoRnSli 8+Wmpl2Y8IRLbkR4N5WFAnQH1sNm1XtoKBsMn1ug= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([213.142.96.110]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M0Kp7-1ifX0t2xzh-00udqk; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 17:16:46 +0200 Subject: Re: bug#26243: 25.1; `dired-pop-to-buffer' warning To: Lars Ingebrigtsen , Drew Adams References: <1355208c-862e-4c1e-8218-a2efdf66142c@default> <87y30lm4l0.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> From: martin rudalics Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 17:16:45 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87y30lm4l0.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: de-DE Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:ItSy8tRlfDkaj1sgBH3T6zeZ5+oFKq86SfUUq8mALnjcA1Gsnss fiw69Zb/O9guRUUBYLxjUtI6nFBFJWhK6ecwWWBeeIJ+lAwjIY4SstPfP+kltB4CQ8+1/Fb tblgRwfN7nzzJvy5YqD6/Ih9azP0YPWUVwwTCS2K6GT/MiOjU7DGNQwdZoLfqzSwhcevHF9 OSEUfwMDXK5WMbalX+nug== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:MB9yWNFoVc0=:gOaGvPNdHaxudzgKuWq2Vm tbGUxQDNwGfa5yiTjGJ2h9QaLNQGuibP/w8ZR/DHJkjBNqhS2UFtekiVS+UqQHq0QR78/94ou UKibsqLB6k7nUitPEsqvEUWeeb7z84O4NSIscg3dBoVf8o5UHnmVXMgVoiPmaFHEq/ZQkPmue 4lmiwX3IUmy/z2E6q3zyPF50UL/nDnJYxyE1d3Vbaq3KFcWxkwZbG9IUn6qYjIFr4FKciZnP5 RhsJg+i/6yaFvRd8O3/9yDFhJF7GiKvEEoCsihMQX0A30fauosvtsJ+ex8fVos+zEovj4f0Rs 0ZROxzfv3y8kikGr3eXYEKYwWO0rIJB3rebwSxhwEGOn+hxOoGikF9IMMBiJ1fkOWLzMngUkp 4+eS7zW2K5TVGsH/XKMq+mJlbPk4E+XgWtjvdVfM0EKlq4k9TppzmTiSeT0yb1YdquVtoqt6q pSUpFz8yACxl4LJZ5pGFUOEQhcim6YXae4SDZPpMvYkPIziK9ilA2jynesdt6DCO5mVJWBWZZ e2g/nkzWrq7U/k+6GbcurQAaTFVmfDl0FY6C6JHwidd8eJf7Xng5+dQcgzHtxup5Hk1LIeMKQ NptOf5eS6WtjWCRnu2RbQbk474sujVSsEU0sCok3L0PIMFzPNUr89TBhxQuaFwKhP17Ns0Dvg CwGy1BSST4VRfR0w9rTuQEZrCOlimMzE13n0VqeOfNWDNOnBbjwH/smymYkkusMDVRjLaJPX5 MKTuDHZZQO4Nm6GUBuSEeDMFSlSJs/U3HWbZ7eHKnQkjPS0iLQQHRSEaNEYkk0a2/5jroO0RY 7M54AFPa6biokyz3npwBHq7klQIYYisxG15UcAScw2QmhNTrJ/TGzo8unuVKsLsgSEfpsn+Iw kZivHEAfvHU+5WxGg5oM5/KIvZqgtFqqeW/DpbT8FusMDuvyt1SsLgum7IhF6eXohdcp9tS6J 3tzOPvEJZbSsk6rMtmDlwOZcqIYHmknC16IDbQggov4k5L7tI3rMUgkMx3USGHSs21bMfNEYs mL7eYppN8cGSJxFDXa0udIw0HYFwsBx0LdIKwdtveLHOrBUOIyhBVU3/RbF9GykeCAqHm7dyV fcT7XlgZ0HUD80= X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 26243 Cc: 26243@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) > It was added with a reference to bug 1806, which is a 170 message long > thread which I've not read. I've Cc'd Juri (who made the change) in > case the reference makes sense anyway, in which case I'll revert my > change. I think the declaration should say to use 'pop-to-buffer' instead of 'dired-pop-to-buffer'. But let's wait for Juri. martin From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 29 18:44:35 2019 Received: (at 26243) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Jul 2019 22:44:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49295 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hsENf-0000PP-5E for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 18:44:35 -0400 Received: from bongo.elm.relay.mailchannels.net ([23.83.212.21]:10316) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hsENX-0000P7-M6 for 26243@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 18:44:28 -0400 X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|jurta@jurta.org Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E43C5E1B00; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 22:44:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a43.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-88-209.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.88.209]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0A0A55E2889; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 22:44:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|jurta@jurta.org Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a43.g.dreamhost.com ([TEMPUNAVAIL]. [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.17.5); Mon, 29 Jul 2019 22:44:26 +0000 X-MC-Relay: Neutral X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|jurta@jurta.org X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost X-Desert-Blushing: 2ae4a7d511ac3259_1564440266313_211795928 X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1564440266313:2930366627 X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1564440266313 Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a43.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a43.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 128F6830B9; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 15:44:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=linkov.net; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=linkov.net; bh=oHEy26XAag7ayoJ1NEiAVy9r1Xw=; b= GeAKSECmtT4ApwFEJOouEboOT85kZhYcJ0zrqqBLPPbIIXpSEXwLk1nIlkKmNWmK uqEH44uhxA6Msgm+h7IOIL+RezsN8KKxQRYItRqARtu9tk7k4iKg7I0OhvUQsgZA qSPQ/+C3NdMdy7MeIB1sadnx2WIYgOtVmyRr5b6Jz2E= Received: from mail.jurta.org (m91-129-103-76.cust.tele2.ee [91.129.103.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jurta@jurta.org) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a43.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 298488301E; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 15:44:18 -0700 (PDT) X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a43 From: Juri Linkov To: martin rudalics Subject: Re: bug#26243: 25.1; `dired-pop-to-buffer' warning Organization: LINKOV.NET References: <1355208c-862e-4c1e-8218-a2efdf66142c@default> <87y30lm4l0.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 01:41:50 +0300 In-Reply-To: (martin rudalics's message of "Mon, 29 Jul 2019 17:16:45 +0200") Message-ID: <87sgqompjl.fsf@mail.linkov.net> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100 X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrledvgddufecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfftffgtefojffquffvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefhvffuohhfffgjkfgfgggtsehttdertddtredtnecuhfhrohhmpefluhhrihcunfhinhhkohhvuceojhhurhhisehlihhnkhhovhdrnhgvtheqnecukfhppeeluddruddvledruddtfedrjeeinecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphdphhgvlhhopehmrghilhdrjhhurhhtrgdrohhrghdpihhnvghtpeeluddruddvledruddtfedrjeeipdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpefluhhrihcunfhinhhkohhvuceojhhurhhisehlihhnkhhovhdrnhgvtheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepjhhurhhisehlihhnkhhovhdrnhgvthdpnhhrtghpthhtoheprhhuuggrlhhitghssehgmhigrdgrthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedu X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 26243 Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 26243@debbugs.gnu.org, Drew Adams X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) >> It was added with a reference to bug 1806, which is a 170 message long >> thread which I've not read. I've Cc'd Juri (who made the change) in >> case the reference makes sense anyway, in which case I'll revert my >> change. > > I think the declaration should say to use 'pop-to-buffer' instead of > 'dired-pop-to-buffer'. But let's wait for Juri. Yes, either 'pop-to-buffer' or 'dired-mark-pop-up'. If 'dired-mark-pop-up' doesn't suit the needs due to its narrow applicability, then a more general 'pop-to-buffer' should be used. 'dired-pop-to-buffer' was an ugly wrapper around 'pop-to-buffer' with some additions that now should be specified as ACTION args of 'display-buffer' (an example is in 'dired-mark-pop-up'). I don't understand why Drew still uses 'dired-pop-to-buffer'. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 29 20:54:05 2019 Received: (at 26243) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Jul 2019 00:54:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49362 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hsGOy-0001e6-DI for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 20:54:05 -0400 Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:51730) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hsGOw-0001dd-QL for 26243@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 20:54:03 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (userp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x6U0rZVN004833; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:53:56 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2018-07-02; bh=k1STAJpt6R/V5O6DKzbDIB8hpX7ZDuHgfn34DsrqnmY=; b=crHlQuccBLTl4eWdopREoTZe63Xyz6fTyNLfwj9ebJezkM5zThPJGKONXTLe/MCz4KnT 6rp42o36tvMsB59Crrt+oyW72pKDR4sEun4P+y6xJsPH/yxb5vk28E9TuZgNvinTJVI5 PlGVzUKX5+3PNxHUiKOnopOOQ2yu69Be/z2NCYJt0mGH3WqXN5lqMt6ZvTOyn7ZO8lLc dPG/TDngg6o7b3NiRcaZgJ6dBYmE4/RRikTLwy80/seLP3rhHV+jQLwz5NkGuqq7x0S+ gKkxDYsM4cvIBcQP2knLbZoT9vg+RJGSD4zpWZJoP86FoDemhRK7Ak0OPuFmM1JzxT2T pw== Received: from userp3030.oracle.com (userp3030.oracle.com [156.151.31.80]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2u0f8qttxr-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:53:56 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (userp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x6U0qxNk029965; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:53:56 GMT Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by userp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2u0bqtsvn8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:53:56 +0000 Received: from abhmp0015.oracle.com (abhmp0015.oracle.com [141.146.116.21]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id x6U0rrTJ003392; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:53:54 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <1628bf91-2d28-486d-85e5-63ac32c1ede4@default> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 17:53:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Drew Adams To: Juri Linkov , martin rudalics Subject: RE: bug#26243: 25.1; `dired-pop-to-buffer' warning References: <1355208c-862e-4c1e-8218-a2efdf66142c@default> <87y30lm4l0.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> <87sgqompjl.fsf@mail.linkov.net> In-Reply-To: <87sgqompjl.fsf@mail.linkov.net> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4873.0 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9333 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1907300006 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9333 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1907300007 X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 26243 Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , 26243@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > Yes, either 'pop-to-buffer' or 'dired-mark-pop-up'. If 'dired-mark- > pop-up' > doesn't suit the needs due to its narrow applicability, then a more > general > 'pop-to-buffer' should be used. 'dired-pop-to-buffer' was an ugly > wrapper > around 'pop-to-buffer' with some additions that now should be specified > as ACTION args of 'display-buffer' (an example is in 'dired-mark-pop- > up'). > I don't understand why Drew still uses 'dired-pop-to-buffer'. I use `dired-pop-to-buffer' in more than one place in my code (Dired+). (I use a different definition of it, but that's not really important here. I also use a different definition of `dired-mark-pop-up'.) `dired-pop-to-buffer' shouldn't have been declared "obsolete" in my opinion. But in any case, surely `dired-mark-pop-up' can't be used to do anything like what it does. (And no, `pop-to-buffer' isn't an adequate replacement for it either.) > some additions that now should be specified > as ACTION args of 'display-buffer' (an example > is in 'dired-mark-pop-up'). FWIW, we apparently disagree about whether using `display-buffer' ACTION args is the way to do things. We likely have different ideas about what is elegant and what is ugly. ;-) When a doc string resorts to telling users things like this, I'd say we're already veering off the elegant road: "use the Customization interface to add a new rule to `display-buffer-alist' where condition regexp is \"^ \\*Marked Files\\*$\", action argument symbol is `window-height' and its value is nil." From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Jul 30 07:35:29 2019 Received: (at 26243) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Jul 2019 11:35:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49650 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hsQPh-0000xX-8n for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 07:35:29 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:59846) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hsQPe-0000xO-6W for 26243@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 07:35:26 -0400 Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=stories) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hsQPY-00079v-J9; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 13:35:23 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Juri Linkov Subject: Re: bug#26243: 25.1; `dired-pop-to-buffer' warning References: <1355208c-862e-4c1e-8218-a2efdf66142c@default> <87y30lm4l0.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> <87sgqompjl.fsf@mail.linkov.net> Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAElBMVEUrCQWDGAQOAwPJIwLV JgLXXz9b40YKAAACVElEQVQ4jV2US3IjIQyGJTqzl1DPXsgXAIsDuAuyT01N7n+VEZ3Y8Ri7qwwf evyS2pBwn/fVH7+aAYDKz8F9ZYNkBvpKRlEgs2L7/DzXezx/F0kGsyqnVzACcNKa+ngBEcOgj9br i6tqgGe06+djnWAk2L5A/1/HzLDfQXz8Gcw7GP1ZDX8D2t39GTj0SassDMKnJ7+DpdIsoZW0yZzH d9ARFkzItlGxLVK/GT5czSGxdYIeZ4fqV9DTsnJWQV/mB4J8gZXKESEk8k37oIufkhPsI2y8WZ8N EzfSxuuqwdsCM1OvKzsAk+XqyAGW4mx7Xc3EaizuqyThcb/1atK9qqGEXNOxX8+y35gMnJLa5sJK pSEtMGqOVno2tcLYkBlguRq2wuI4CDUSc9JeS10xrnE1kUeOnAp5Yzm2CtyjPiWXjH4zpkLDWVoh SG/RYM1m0toSyN3z3lABl4qSAQMgMW0yaB9QoMwptWTFzVnZXbxGmQSg9AaAtXBxTtsCDcJVgsuc yCrKpVHo8zCIYRM9wUgbEbToe/dhLZluvJRvBwq3xpGnt6aerEiDqL4E8Ijt65tQspXm0GK4jnRp 0tb1HlBq49HDYkStpY5jwxpDyuC3JrMDMcaN5j7Yr6tDuoo1J5Sr+tVCwW2rV/FxMIeLGLgLMUcn MCrKY83ngT3CTVDVKPvvnxfns07Z6w6WlEzenwjFa2kIRl7F3/HJAldDozD7Ebtf9+OPeGxNmOnO a/vxBPIJ8Mhr++cb/InfJwA0DVoSrkEFu684L5zsIrnwiL+JB/gHNzzIbvr5IfcAAAAASUVORK5C YII= Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 13:35:20 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87sgqompjl.fsf@mail.linkov.net> (Juri Linkov's message of "Tue, 30 Jul 2019 01:41:50 +0300") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Juri Linkov writes: >> I think the declaration should say to use 'pop-to-buffer' instead of >> 'dired-pop-to-buffer'. But let's wait for Juri. > > Yes, either 'pop-to-buffer' or 'dired-mark-pop-up'. Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 26243 Cc: martin rudalics , 26243@debbugs.gnu.org, Drew Adams X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Juri Linkov writes: >> I think the declaration should say to use 'pop-to-buffer' instead of >> 'dired-pop-to-buffer'. But let's wait for Juri. > > Yes, either 'pop-to-buffer' or 'dired-mark-pop-up'. I've now done the former. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Jul 30 15:08:45 2019 Received: (at 26243) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Jul 2019 19:08:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51192 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hsXUK-0008PI-QY for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:08:45 -0400 Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:46946) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hsXUI-0008P2-UG for 26243@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:08:43 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (userp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x6UIxAME155379; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 19:08:36 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2018-07-02; bh=8FPV+3ON5UwZQr5hCThxwbSM21oRo5Q2IXkCK/+mr6E=; b=5RJCC94I5OxGjYUf+MnF/wT3x0PmdD/QJACgElyxZSY0RArCeAapuCD6Z8kydrB/JaTx eR0fexmuKwmmtiF0DTX99Csu5t2FMHs2jNKrsKHoKbbk1DTSe3F9MorKp4dR94EltpMF Qvqr65o4EGiSF5eymCY9JNylJa1P31rhP0aMy/BLtTNIclUgIEUi/OlXsB4/Jv4c7hG3 6xjDhVSlp0ZjpZkHVectIeo52HT5n0yvwNaZ9PHIv8KQivy1W9LTbcCS3g0xd16To2EI jDCm/ONWv8CapkmKmriY3qh00Ib+UXc7CCJ65qCJcZ7wtpt2EPjftJggH7Q/uClEJQoc GQ== Received: from userp3030.oracle.com (userp3030.oracle.com [156.151.31.80]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2u0f8r0e57-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 30 Jul 2019 19:08:36 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (userp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x6UIwJkD041256; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 19:08:36 GMT Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by userp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2u0bqubmcv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 30 Jul 2019 19:08:36 +0000 Received: from abhmp0005.oracle.com (abhmp0005.oracle.com [141.146.116.11]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x6UJ8Y2G030378; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 19:08:35 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <260df8d5-9d94-4c1d-9727-681c6c217773@default> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 12:08:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Drew Adams To: Lars Ingebrigtsen , Juri Linkov Subject: RE: bug#26243: 25.1; `dired-pop-to-buffer' warning References: <1355208c-862e-4c1e-8218-a2efdf66142c@default> <87y30lm4l0.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> <87sgqompjl.fsf@mail.linkov.net> In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4873.0 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9334 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=981 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1907300193 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9334 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1907300193 X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 26243 Cc: martin rudalics , 26243@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > >> I think the declaration should say to use 'pop-to-buffer' instead of > >> 'dired-pop-to-buffer'. But let's wait for Juri. > > > > Yes, either 'pop-to-buffer' or 'dired-mark-pop-up'. >=20 > I've now done the former. OK, so instead of a "done" that's pretty much a "won't fix" now. A fairer treatment would be: (declare (obsolete nil "24.3")) A better treatment would be to remove the declaration (un-obsolete). From unknown Sat Aug 16 18:46:56 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 11:24:03 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator