GNU bug report logs - #75626
31.0.50; Dired misses or double-processes files when auto-revert-mode is enabled

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: michael_heerdegen <at> web.de, michael.albinus <at> gmx.de
Cc: 75626 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, tsdh <at> gnu.org
Subject: bug#75626: 31.0.50; Dired misses or double-processes files when auto-revert-mode is enabled
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 16:13:15 +0200

> Cc: 75626 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, tsdh <at> gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:38:16 +0200
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
> 
> > From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
> > Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,  75626 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:36:37 +0100
> > 
> > Tassilo Horn <tsdh <at> gnu.org> writes:
> > 
> > > > Anyway, that other places could want to use this was not my
> > > > suggestion, it was yours, AFAIR.
> > >
> > > No, Michael's.
> > 
> > Yes, I wanted to bring that up.  Though I don't understand the naming
> > convention thing, too.
> > 
> > But I also have a question: can it happen that we prevent an
> > auto-revert, and it is then not happening delayed, but completely
> > canceled?  Or will auto-revert-mode always try again later even without
> > a new notification (or however that works)?
> 
> You mean, if this buffer's file or directory never changes again after
> this one time?  Let's ask Michael Albinus (CC'ed).

Michael informed me off-list that he will be able to respond only
later.  So we could either make this change now and wait for his
comments, or do it the other way around.  I don't think it matters
much which way we do it.

Previous Next

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