GNU bug report logs - #58839
29.0.50; project-kill-buffer fails when Eglot is running

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>

Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 12:58:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Found in version 29.0.50

Full log


Message #203 received at 58839 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com>
To: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: philipk <at> posteo.net, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
 manuel.uberti <at> inventati.org, 58839 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#58839: [Patch] Re: bug#58839: 29.0.50; project-kill-buffer
 fails when Eglot is running
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2022 07:34:51 +0000
Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru> writes:

>> I've explained to Philip objective reasons why I think evaluated
>> mini-languages are almost always inferior to a decent Lisp such as Elisp.
>> You could perfectly reasonably deprecate these two variables.
> Not where this discussion is going, is it?

Not sure.  This started has a report of hidden buffer being incorrectly
killed by project.el.  After much insistence, you've agreed to plug the
hole in that library.  During tests I also discovered that project.el is
killing other buffers nonsensically, like Gnus buffers, *ibuffer*, and
many other global.  It was actually easier to find false-positives of
your heuristic than true ones.  Again, after some insistence, you seem
to have come around that these things represent bugs.

Three people here have suggested an opt-in approach for the true
positives.  Now your strategy seems to be "OK: let all these false
positives remain nonsensically associated with a project in
project-buffers but let's have global databases of exceptions for
specific operations, using a (largely redundant) mini-language for
buffer-matching".

If that doesn't sound like a bad idea in the face of much better other
ideas, I don't know what else to tell you.

>>  > I'm fairly sure that the solution I offered would be easy enough
>>  > implement, to actually protect the vulnerable buffer.
>>  > I suppose we are not doing that, however.
>> You sketched an untested code-less idea and I explained how flawed
>> it was.
>
> Back atcha. Modulo "code-less".

Not only did I provide code, I also verified that it works.  Anyone can
see my messages to verify that.

João




This bug report was last modified 2 years and 280 days ago.

Previous Next


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