GNU bug report logs - #53207
28.0.91; create-lockfiles nil breaks file change detection

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>, Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: ejb <at> ql.org, 53207 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#53207: 28.0.91; create-lockfiles nil breaks file change detection
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 12:54:30 +0200

> From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 13:13:40 -0500
> Cc: michael.albinus <at> gmx.de, 53207 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> Probably a consequence of 9ce6541ac9, specifically:
> 
>   * src/filelock.c (lock_file): Don't check create_lockfiles.

Actually, the more relevant part is this:

    (Flock_file): Check create_lockfiles.

which did

  -  CHECK_STRING (file);
  -  lock_file (file);
  +#ifndef MSDOS
  +  /* Don't do locking if the user has opted out.  */
  +  if (create_lockfiles)
  +    {
  +      CHECK_STRING (file);
  +      lock_file (file);
  +    }
  +#endif /* MSDOS */

> which would seem to mean that ask-user-about-supersession-threat
> is no longer called when create-lockfiles is nil.
> Was this intentional?

Michael, can you please chime in?  The long discussion we had back
then doesn't seem to mention this aspect, or maybe I'm missing
something?

We should either document this change (if we think what we have now is
the intended behavior), or we should move the call to
userlock--ask-user-about-supersession-threat into Flock_file if it's
unintended.

Personally, I prefer the former, since lock_file accesses the lock
file, which doesn't make a lot of sense if the user opted out of the
feature.  But that's me.

Lars, WDYT?

Thanks.

Previous Next

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