From unknown Wed Jun 18 00:27:12 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#70326 <70326@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#70326 <70326@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: 30.0.50; Backup Files documentation does not match observed behaviour Reply-To: bug#70326 <70326@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 07:27:12 +0000 retitle 70326 30.0.50; Backup Files documentation does not match observed b= ehaviour reassign 70326 emacs submitter 70326 Markus Triska severity 70326 normal tag 70326 notabug thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 10 14:10:29 2024 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Apr 2024 18:10:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54346 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rucOy-0002qA-Go for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:10:29 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:470:142::17]:50724) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rucOu-0002oM-BA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:10:26 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rucOf-0001Lo-VN for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:10:09 -0400 Received: from [78.47.144.35] (helo=metalevel.at) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rucOd-0005wg-Ou for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:10:09 -0400 Received: from mts-Mac-mini.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by metalevel.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A9D39C751 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:02:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mts-Mac-mini.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6A7762E71B08; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:24:53 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Triska To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 30.0.50; Backup Files documentation does not match observed behaviour Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:24:53 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for 78.47.144.35 (failed) Received-SPF: none client-ip=78.47.144.35; envelope-from=triska@metalevel.at; helo=metalevel.at X-Spam_score_int: -10 X-Spam_score: -1.1 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) In 19.3.2 Backup Files, we read: "Emacs makes a backup for a file only the first time the file is saved from a buffer." However, when I launch Emacs with: $ emacs -Q and then do: C-x C-w backup.txt RET then the file is saved from the buffer as expected, and Emacs tells me: "Wrote .../backup.txt" However, even though this is the first time the file is saved from a buffer, no backup for a file is created, and buffer-backed-up is nil. If possible, could you please consider rephrasing the documentation so that it accurately describes the cases where a backup file is created, or alternatively adapt the behaviour so that it matches the current documentation? Thank you and all the best, Markus In GNU Emacs 30.0.50 (build 1, x86_64-apple-darwin18.2.0, X toolkit, cairo version 1.17.6, Xaw scroll bars) of 2023-09-11 built on mac Windowing system distributor 'The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.12011000 System Description: Mac OS X 10.14.2 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 10 14:29:10 2024 Received: (at 70326) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Apr 2024 18:29:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54374 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ruch3-0005ak-OH for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:29:10 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58488) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ruch0-0005Z3-C3; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:29:08 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rucgl-0000Hy-Er; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:28:51 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=hFttxS97sGqMICVu9ZQTulSlKVyOPY+fLw0KiE0hXao=; b=pEI9s+FDJcNn capWJdKhkmJtC//j6JmlarKTg7qVkm7mG1qhNSwSds74zMfMKwUdfjRxxFYteHqwvrzap4F6+cnwR +Ad6wedkLD2ALSH7mjb00NRTA3AqJ1YKV740ClM8Ny6JWo03aF8NFskpM0qgMORA2VpCyMukqPjwI nPw9BLu3UiwliH+CDd7kR5Dj6D1+E3xa/GsDZaj3TIPF7JMNmhxF4Qpjq7aszjkqE74ERxoeqzzH9 7wTPOhniOImVQg/cdwW4sf5hfDtcUi3oVFgJ9hbD8goBvPlGePZtgWjX8uVvzJFInO1yDHT8LjDdO 8c0WLIO0URo5pK8maE/J3A==; Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:28:47 +0300 Message-Id: <86h6g9ul5s.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Markus Triska In-Reply-To: (message from Markus Triska on Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:24:53 +0200) Subject: Re: bug#70326: 30.0.50; Backup Files documentation does not match observed behaviour References: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 70326 Cc: 70326@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) tags 70326 notabug thanks > From: Markus Triska > Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:24:53 +0200 > > In 19.3.2 Backup Files, we read: > > "Emacs makes a backup for a file only the first time the file is saved > from a buffer." > > However, when I launch Emacs with: > > $ emacs -Q > > and then do: > > C-x C-w backup.txt RET "C-x C-w" is not "saving the file from a buffer". "C-h c" says that "C-x C-w runs the command write-file". So I don't see anything wrong with what the manual says. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 10 14:54:23 2024 Received: (at 70326) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Apr 2024 18:54:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54381 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rud5R-0003Am-AK for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:54:23 -0400 Received: from [78.47.144.35] (port=60314 helo=metalevel.at) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rud5A-00035I-3z for 70326@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:54:15 -0400 Received: by metalevel.at (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EFE279C76F; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:53:53 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Triska To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#70326: 30.0.50; Backup Files documentation does not match observed behaviour References: <86h6g9ul5s.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:53:53 +0200 In-Reply-To: <86h6g9ul5s.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:28:47 +0300") Message-ID: <87ttk9ujzy.fsf@metalevel.at> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Eli Zaretskii writes: > "C-x C-w" is not "saving the file from a buffer". "C-h c" says that > "C-x C-w runs the command write-file". So I don't see anything wrong > with what the manual says. Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 0.0 SPF_NONE SPF: sender does not publish an SPF Record 1.3 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 70326 Cc: 70326@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) Eli Zaretskii writes: > "C-x C-w" is not "saving the file from a buffer". "C-h c" says that > "C-x C-w runs the command write-file". So I don't see anything wrong > with what the manual says. To reproduce the issue, you can also type a letter and then use C-x C-s (i.e., save-buffer), and observe the same effect: A backup file is not created, even though a file is saved for the first time from a buffer. All the best, Markus From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 10 15:28:37 2024 Received: (at 70326) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Apr 2024 19:28:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54391 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rudca-0000YN-Nu for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 15:28:37 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42560) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rudcU-0000WM-P4 for 70326@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 15:28:34 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rudcF-0001dp-RX; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 15:28:15 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=eWuPRG9QTpUCoX8nwzBg8Q6vlQ+MVkuQbcmviwHmHPU=; b=HgadyyWW8dzg ySFbCIzXvMK5VyS7e/4nM00hdcF0kjUDwzLdP0vHHOx3rUcxf1xlyXUPl8WuFWhbdToxbq4YF+8zV fTrai0U6A383GXRO9Ub9l6IKzVjJHPOltVTxp8WyBuLX/XTiYkcHvJy/dyOWUxTZaXboBYAQ3SsAU bYL9hz28aB0SCH4qeoDK4Eoigvr4BAxj19IXERAlJHUXQ6XyZSN/oG/OaFkduv+nircR2ECgpTNy7 oIASdguNofSh9K/VuqEUkenX/E1NENs5csPQxpR7GvBKhgbgNZ5ATzZfIAccXQmQFoWF4ZNRmf8QY CM1OiDjwOY09O+KoTEFlFw==; Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 22:28:14 +0300 Message-Id: <86edbduiep.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Markus Triska In-Reply-To: <87ttk9ujzy.fsf@metalevel.at> (message from Markus Triska on Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:53:53 +0200) Subject: Re: bug#70326: 30.0.50; Backup Files documentation does not match observed behaviour References: <86h6g9ul5s.fsf@gnu.org> <87ttk9ujzy.fsf@metalevel.at> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 70326 Cc: 70326@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Markus Triska > Cc: 70326@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:53:53 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > "C-x C-w" is not "saving the file from a buffer". "C-h c" says that > > "C-x C-w runs the command write-file". So I don't see anything wrong > > with what the manual says. > > To reproduce the issue, you can also type a letter and then use C-x C-s > (i.e., save-buffer), and observe the same effect: A backup file is not > created, even though a file is saved for the first time from a buffer. That is still not saving the file from its buffer. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 10 15:47:14 2024 Received: (at 70326) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Apr 2024 19:47:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54409 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ruduc-0003HY-Hq for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 15:47:14 -0400 Received: from [78.47.144.35] (port=60720 helo=metalevel.at) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ruduX-0003H5-KE for 70326@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 15:47:13 -0400 Received: by metalevel.at (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3FDB89C76F; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:46:59 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Triska To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#70326: 30.0.50; Backup Files documentation does not match observed behaviour References: <86h6g9ul5s.fsf@gnu.org> <87ttk9ujzy.fsf@metalevel.at> <86edbduiep.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:46:59 +0200 In-Reply-To: <86edbduiep.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 10 Apr 2024 22:28:14 +0300") Message-ID: <878r1l57bg.fsf@metalevel.at> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Eli Zaretskii writes: > That is still not saving the file from its buffer. The documentation does not require "saving the file from its buffer", but mentions "saving the file from a buffer", and save-buffer is described as "Save current buffer in visited file". If save-buffe [...] Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 0.0 SPF_NONE SPF: sender does not publish an SPF Record 1.3 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 70326 Cc: 70326@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) Eli Zaretskii writes: > That is still not saving the file from its buffer. The documentation does not require "saving the file from its buffer", but mentions "saving the file from a buffer", and save-buffer is described as "Save current buffer in visited file". If save-buffer does not qualify as saving a file from a buffer, then indeed please consider the issue addressed. Thank you a lot! From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 11 00:00:28 2024 Received: (at 70326) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2024 04:00:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54703 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rulbw-0007AD-CH for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 00:00:28 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.4]:52603) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rulbs-00079V-4e for 70326@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 00:00:26 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=web.de; s=s29768273; t=1712808008; x=1713412808; i=michael_heerdegen@web.de; bh=XdyB8UJ1XdWzdd6VvojC1gFuoPBnI8KhssnCvGGEyas=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Date; b=qthBXIUFiykbK1VzbM95yGQ4SmPr5cTyYd3ajsDRDra4U0JgvsXDC8qmzH3JgVKi pORd4kIlSmBLuweHenxuF1a4nfn0pOMx9YgOI0VdbUXNMJQtgp4HfwHEJ0NoknSDM i6q99l1LTh5YGcNIKjRKJfc8Deka3xBaSAOJXej9WlHoeUJrvO3k9ji5MGMM1Jrrm FWElsIWWT3UFlW9fCYG1D4sAhMOoGwsXJeAyl9jwBUOAMBayD/VatHbUsKBT0FIsS O+/1ZBqXuqIjC/jtomSdFrUjmMUNrE7V8GcD6yfZvJIg8h/dGUEwH9d3g1bGdxVR5 PHyw1QFu5ggSVltN+A== X-UI-Sender-Class: 814a7b36-bfc1-4dae-8640-3722d8ec6cd6 Received: from drachen.dragon ([84.57.248.23]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb005 [213.165.67.108]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MUU68-1sL3tn3zxw-00IWkN; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 06:00:08 +0200 From: Michael Heerdegen To: Markus Triska Subject: Re: bug#70326: 30.0.50; Backup Files documentation does not match observed behaviour In-Reply-To: <878r1l57bg.fsf@metalevel.at> (Markus Triska's message of "Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:46:59 +0200") References: <86h6g9ul5s.fsf@gnu.org> <87ttk9ujzy.fsf@metalevel.at> <86edbduiep.fsf@gnu.org> <878r1l57bg.fsf@metalevel.at> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 06:00:46 +0200 Message-ID: <87v84oy2dt.fsf@web.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:oSUIWUzRX/fkTigLHV33tSEmbqaH9mq/8JkNZUwl+l5HeHOnZ0I 4ET/MyZr3va+YowWCzUlkEx9f+0DcvBovxowFZHkuqPcEddlRrYSmWjwls/ynmuTlTLbKL9 MsGpmUMRUlS6MdywL0AAMlOJ2oQmIRReYICCZURYGUCbtBB79fhlLUiq5gdTMvffmqAJ2MB fBbVhNkjYdmu7r8fowpHw== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:zSwYecgpLPo=;3+iaAaxzUJJ+1ORng/JaXrnlPSJ FXN6OxwZXbDiEfyiYgAgDBqlYIMtUl64Ole6pX6Ur1o7tXFFEUanR2JSgqDocrXxnqjLLNsJ+ 04TZAp/7GRkol+PBeYtJYWWCMIDmE74QmGDVVkA7CBZ0kTxcOm3Ipgn7P3zZ/Dj3G4KK67y/a d8rGOHtvuqaJm5710Nt6kzl+dc4ixe+YnxTAD4Wvb0Uxpzdx9/8zxjRY76FGBlflBjaFmuVwt tPknB7mIV5MCfjTtq3D/hi+gKD70m/fMs7DqR/x2DS9ezTOWkyQ8xZN1keYHAI4CWCPIUDi69 pNrE8+dBavKV7zRuxyyU0uP6cNX06a2SI8bvWLXwc7n/L7JzZhuKH3OOAq2vFAFhebZmw8v+C +s8YIzQaOohhP0TP3NvtYId6ypdECeL/utkANcgH49QagTgVkKKArK2KU8dowcP3Z7vw6Kil2 jY3TbuK0eJEvhwNwwLfKTVTeSXT7+pBExwsb+nX86FDftDhG4OAXM6OLXGFZXKRwb2dK9GA8i SM6uFvJmu3gTV1JuKI9ZiKb2eY7Yh/ls1pqwdUpmnFdluC2xHqHMq6qJ+n/mkYfvCTCJd06mQ 6LoG6UikWqMdCOyzLA1VsMCQbmG2zQGy2yzuus+r1oiedFoFxrpP6C09+QJdPq8NlXUkxv9kk nbG7FtmL+N1JMJXwoW2MkOfIpAolLevSU+E2oX8GMukNK+u9cSo5bEsoevuQECA+zDagBO//a 74WCdcX5bU2lpZ3ynF5kSiAHzEEK8obSmB8nWclYYeAUaNz0vLph2RiW3bUQm3+VkFFuUNLmM cgsZInEISqqNn1d/xYmq10zraMuchO/pRj6um+4kEqwJQ= X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 70326 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 70326@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) Markus Triska writes: > The documentation does not require "saving the file from its buffer", > but mentions "saving the file from a buffer", and save-buffer is > described as "Save current buffer in visited file". This argument makes sense to me. "its" would be better if it is technically correct enough. Michael. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 11 01:59:46 2024 Received: (at 70326) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2024 05:59:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54753 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1runTM-0001bk-MK for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:59:46 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34548) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1runTI-0001bK-Na for 70326@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:59:43 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1runT3-0000f3-JX; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:59:25 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=jKXez0RTpjbiWnwfxOZy8il4v5IDdF7s800+glGbwSo=; b=MBjwextEJhYK hD+3kfvLdNjKx78VdD+dmST771cMlXXYv3A4rb2Pgw5L8QCl3HVEk/MOJP/GxZuPZ/XAl+9Jiws42 +N14PhY6M2XqMheYkycjQp5yPldzhWD86H6zyiu+EuZuj0Kfk2N4l2+Fmc9A2NUTFO0fjQO9CDmXw IxefWcPdvXVlMHpaYAsX82DVZt0mmtrvZLesAvi9zdkecMDtlelt+DuIW5GGUgqoUfFHHJ5urPJuX rTKff1aK1KbdRJxVefFn0cCd2JRMPD2uvvV8xaxLyEoJEAOFma1Sx+k8JQFq1cdiZglpe2w/SEwBd l4H+wgwGe98jpAa8/8gocA==; Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:59:23 +0300 Message-Id: <86cyqwv3r8.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Markus Triska In-Reply-To: <878r1l57bg.fsf@metalevel.at> (message from Markus Triska on Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:46:59 +0200) Subject: Re: bug#70326: 30.0.50; Backup Files documentation does not match observed behaviour References: <86h6g9ul5s.fsf@gnu.org> <87ttk9ujzy.fsf@metalevel.at> <86edbduiep.fsf@gnu.org> <878r1l57bg.fsf@metalevel.at> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 70326 Cc: 70326@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Markus Triska > Cc: 70326@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:46:59 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > That is still not saving the file from its buffer. > > The documentation does not require "saving the file from its buffer", > but mentions "saving the file from a buffer", and save-buffer is > described as "Save current buffer in visited file". When have you last looked at the documentation in that part of the manual? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 11 02:12:03 2024 Received: (at 70326) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2024 06:12:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54757 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1runfH-0003Ac-Da for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 02:12:03 -0400 Received: from [78.47.144.35] (port=36022 helo=metalevel.at) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1runfD-00039y-Gq for 70326@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 02:12:02 -0400 Received: by metalevel.at (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 03FE69C76E; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:11:48 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Triska To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#70326: 30.0.50; Backup Files documentation does not match observed behaviour References: <86h6g9ul5s.fsf@gnu.org> <87ttk9ujzy.fsf@metalevel.at> <86edbduiep.fsf@gnu.org> <878r1l57bg.fsf@metalevel.at> <86cyqwv3r8.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:11:48 +0200 In-Reply-To: <86cyqwv3r8.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:59:23 +0300") Message-ID: <87frvsfmxn.fsf@metalevel.at> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Eli Zaretskii writes: > When have you last looked at the documentation in that part of the > manual? I last looked at it a few seconds ago to verify that it still reads as I originally posted it, and indeed it still reads: Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 0.0 SPF_NONE SPF: sender does not publish an SPF Record 1.3 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 70326 Cc: 70326@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) Eli Zaretskii writes: > When have you last looked at the documentation in that part of the > manual? I last looked at it a few seconds ago to verify that it still reads as I originally posted it, and indeed it still reads: Emacs makes a backup for a file only the first time the file is saved from a buffer. To repeat the original issue, this is not the behaviour I observe: There are cases where the file is saved from a buffer, and Emacs does not make a backup. I previously posted an example in this thread, and I hope you find it useful. Thank you a lot! From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 11 03:39:16 2024 Received: (at 70326) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2024 07:39:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54825 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rup1Y-0004qr-Dp for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 03:39:16 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57938) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1rup1X-0004pg-5E for 70326@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 03:39:07 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rup1I-0007Yd-2F; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 03:38:52 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=1tInU4xJXhRDjY+xeMIWtl8GBqcFxImyjx4sUTiXS4k=; b=GSRqQwzOuTzVJbG+PaIw 3/D7FsAyUpcuGTB72K/eqSuROBlrHJOlhdziebPNGCY0jwaJD07MfJU1siiVMDwDHQe9O4KVs7x4n 7VZH2nabfYbHxPxDWJ5u0eey8XBh2RdkzDfC8YaPLZ8R76WRo/Wlt3OacmB8P4s7jacsA/qZWNUxx 8wA4PvSP+du8MPNbXm5J6fm/JWs5aaDg6T4/+w0jv6yZOth3LMzGrw1aIuTkLy7sMsJc0wg/hToH4 yGr4Sw4BLjH76doT5Y5/dOcaS2L8uBsYaWcEoCcsmIHxsoK7idA6UNQB+08lGiIXDlsFyVWpw9kW1 hc/qfzvDVlQm2w==; Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:38:49 +0300 Message-Id: <86zfu0tkl2.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Markus Triska In-Reply-To: <87frvsfmxn.fsf@metalevel.at> (message from Markus Triska on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:11:48 +0200) Subject: Re: bug#70326: 30.0.50; Backup Files documentation does not match observed behaviour References: <86h6g9ul5s.fsf@gnu.org> <87ttk9ujzy.fsf@metalevel.at> <86edbduiep.fsf@gnu.org> <878r1l57bg.fsf@metalevel.at> <86cyqwv3r8.fsf@gnu.org> <87frvsfmxn.fsf@metalevel.at> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 70326 Cc: 70326@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Markus Triska > Cc: 70326@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:11:48 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > When have you last looked at the documentation in that part of the > > manual? > > I last looked at it a few seconds ago to verify that it still reads as I > originally posted it, and indeed it still reads: > > Emacs makes a backup for a file only the first time the file is > saved from a buffer. Here, it says this instead: A “backup file” is a copy of the old contents of a file you are editing. Emacs makes a backup file the first time you save a buffer into its visited file. > To repeat the original issue, this is not the behaviour I observe: There > are cases where the file is saved from a buffer, and Emacs does not make > a backup. I previously posted an example in this thread, and I hope you > find it useful. Thank you a lot! In the two cases you posted, the buffer was not saved into the file visited by the buffer, so this is not "backup" in Emacs terms.