GNU bug report logs - #29412
27.0.50; dired-toggle-read-only should (at some point!) check that the direcory is writeable

Previous Next

Full log

Message #24 received at 29412 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
Cc: Robert Marshall <robert.marshall <at> codethink.co.uk>,
 Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, 29412 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#29412: 27.0.50; dired-toggle-read-only should (at some
 point!) check that the direcory is writeable
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 08:55:36 -0800 (PST)

> >> I've now made `C-c C-q' signal an error if the directory isn't writable
> >> in Emacs 28.
> >
> > I don't feel strongly about this, but I wonder whether
> > that's the right thing to do.  We do NOT do that for
> > files, for example.
> 
> OTOH, displaying a warning might go unnoticed by the user.
> Then maybe better would be to ask a y-or-n question
> whether the user still wants to edit the unwritable buffer.

I disagree.  This should be handled _exactly_ the
same way we handle a buffer for a file that is
read-only.  I see no argument why we should treat
a directory buffer different from a file buffer.

For a file buffer, `C-x C-q' simply echoes:

  "Read-Only mode disabled in current buffer"

That is perfectly clear.

And any attempt to use a subsequent `C-x C-q to
save edit changes should be the time to query a
user for what to do (e.g. confirm saving the
changes or ignore them).

Come up with a good argument why this should be
handled differently from the file-editing case
and we can talk about it.  There are very good
use cases for allowing the _buffer_ to be edited,
regardless of whether the user ultimately wants
such changes applied to disk.

Previous Next

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