Subject: bug#52467: 29.0.50; Use pop-to-buffer for shell

From: Dmitry Gutov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 02:34:56 +0300

On 19.12.2021 16:14, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> Dmitry Gutov <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
>> On 13.12.2021 19:16, Steingold wrote:
>>> It seems much more reasonable to use pop-to-buffer in eshell rather than
>>> break shell's behavior.
>>
>> That seems reasonable too.
>>
>> I think we'll do whatever the maintainers decide on this issue.
> 
> I think the current behaviour makes more sense than the old one, really.
> For one, it's more predictable -- when you say `M-x shell', you're
> getting a shell in the current buffer.

In the current _window_, right?

 >The old behaviour either does
> that, or lands you in a different window (if you've already got a shell
> buffer open elsewhere), right?

To be fair, it might be considered a little inconsistent still. Like, 
you get a shell (or eshell) buffer in the current window, but if some 
shell/eshell buffer already exists, you get that (existing) buffer in 
the current window.

One could expect something else still: a new buffer in the current 
default-directory. Meaning, an [e]shell buffer that corresponds (in some 
way) to the buffer that was previously displayed in that window.

Or to phrase that in a way similar to yours: a shell buffer in the 
current window that's related to the current buffer.