GNU bug report logs - #40725
27.0.91; Tutorial reports false positive key rebindings

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: contovob <at> tcd.ie, 40725 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, juri <at> linkov.net
Subject: bug#40725: 27.0.91; Tutorial reports false positive key rebindings
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 14:47:44 +0200

24 apr. 2020 kl. 14.13 skrev Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>:

> I didn't say "a good reason", I said "if we can solve the issue in
> some other way".

Why does renaming files, a quite uncomplicated operation, have to be the last resort?

>> The file names cause more inconvenience than just the mode problem.
> 
> What problems are those?  You mentioned grepping the files, which can
> be easily handled by excluding the tutorials directory from the
> search.  Are there any other problems we should consider?

I didn't mention grepping (scanning files can be done in multiple ways), but why would I or anyone else need to perform such contortions every time to compensate for a problem that is so easily solved once and for all by simply giving the files better names?

>> Git handles renames gracefully.
> 
> "Gracefully" is in the eyes of the beholder.  It's true the support
> for renames improved in the recent years, but there are still commands
> that either fails or need special invocation methods to work across
> renames.  So it's still a source of inconvenience and occasional
> failure or mistaken conclusions, and I'd like to avoid that if
> possible.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill. It's not going to be a problem; this is not CVS. Let's not invent difficulties.
Nowadays, the bar for renaming files is much lower, and there is no reason whatsoever to shy away from it because of bad experiences in the past with other version control systems.

Previous Next

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