GNU bug report logs - #44598
[PATCH] Do not show obsolete options in customize

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>

Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 20:57:01 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Tags: fixed, patch

Fixed in version 28.1

Done: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 44598 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#44598: [PATCH] Do not show obsolete options in customize
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 17:08:20 -0500
Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda <at> gmail.com> writes:

>> +*** Customize will no longer show obsolete user options.
>> +
>
> Only when customizing a group, it seems.  They still show up when using
> customize-apropos (quite common), customize-saved (for an old setting,
> it could be somewhat common), or when asking to customize them directly
> (although that could be less common).  I don't know what others think,
> but perhaps customize-saved should still show them: after all, it is a
> current user saved setting.

Thanks, I overlooked that.

I think `customize-option' and `customize-saved' should still show
them, indeed.

Excluding the above, is `customize-apropos' otherwise an exhaustive list
of the commands where they would still be visible?

I never use `customize-apropos', so what do you think makes sense for
that command?  Should it still show it?

> Because of the above, perhaps it's too early to remove it?

Perhaps, yes.  I could just mention in its docstring that it's obsolete
instead, since I can't find any facilities to mark a defface obsolete.
Or maybe someone will enlighten me and tell me how it's done...

> And the same goes for this: if the option is still likely to pop up in
> some other Custom buffer, then this is useful information we might want
> to keep showing to the user.

Good point.  I'll take a look at what happens with `customize-option' in
particular, where we would want to mention that information.

> Nit: perhaps seq-remove?

Sure.




This bug report was last modified 4 years and 238 days ago.

Previous Next


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