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

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Mauro Aranda <maurooaranda <at> gmail.com>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: 44598 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#44598: [PATCH] Do not show obsolete options in customize
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 19:41:18 -0300

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

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

> 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?

There's customize-changed-options too.

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

To me, it makes sense that it follows what customize-group does, in this
regard.

>> 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...

But if one Custom buffer still shows obsolete options, wouldn't the face
still be in use?

>> 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.

Why not in the current place?

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Previous Next

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