GNU bug report logs - #32214
[PATCH] 'message-kill-buffer': fix backup delete question

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Sven Willner <sven.willner <at> gmail.com>
To: Noam Postavsky <npostavs <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>, 32214 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#32214: [PATCH] 'message-kill-buffer': fix backup delete question
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 16:40:03 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

hmm, having a second look into message-disassociate-draft, I am 
still not sure what is supposed to happen there.

anyway, my motivation for the patch was to eliminate a rather 
annoying (since unnecessary) question to remove a non-existing 
backup/auto save file. here is the minimal patch (without any 
further changes to the code) doing so.

I think, it makes sense to also check for the existing file-name 
to only remove a backup file if there is a properly saved message, 
too.

[0001-message-kill-buffer-fix-backup-delete-question.patch (text/x-diff, attachment)]

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

Noam Postavsky <npostavs <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Sven Willner <sven.willner <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> also, the 'when' part should only include the actual deletion 
>> of the
>> backup file
>>>     (ignore-errors
>>>       (delete-file auto-save-file-name))
>> rather than also draft diassociation
>>>     (let ((message-draft-article draft-article))
>>>       (message-disassociate-draft)))
>> also fixed in the updated patch.
>
>
>> Subject: [PATCH] 'message-kill-buffer': fix backup delete 
>> question
>>
>> Before 'message-kill-buffer' would ask to delete backup file if 
>> draft has been
>> saved regardless if a backup file has actually been created. 
>> Now only ask if
>> a backup file exists.
>
>> + (when (and auto-save-file-name
>> + (file-exists-p auto-save-file-name)
>> + file-name
>> + (file-exists-p file-name)
>
> Does it still make sense to check for file-name here? If we're 
> just
> deleting the auto save file, we should probably check for that 
> only (but
> see below, I'm not sure if this is actually correct).
>
>> + (progn
>> + ;; If the message buffer has lived in a dedicated window,
>> + ;; `kill-buffer' has killed the frame. Thus the
>> + ;; `yes-or-no-p' may show up in a lowered frame. Make sure
>> + ;; that the user can see the question by raising the
>> + ;; current frame:
>> + (raise-frame)
>> + (yes-or-no-p (format "Remove the backup file%s? "
>> + (if modified " too" "")))))
>
> I wonder if "backup" is meant to refer to the draft copy (as far 
> as I
> can tell (through the many layers of indirection), the draft
> "dissociation" is also some kind of deletion). If so, then I 
> think this
> change isn't a "fix" at all.
>
>> + (ignore-errors
>> + (delete-file auto-save-file-name)))
>> + (let ((message-draft-article draft-article))
>> + (message-disassociate-draft))
>>        (message-do-actions actions))))

Previous Next

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