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 <michael_heerdegen <at> web.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: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 15:30:26 +0200

> From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
> Cc: tsdh <at> gnu.org,  75626 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 14:25:23 +0100
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > Why don't you prefer the new dired--map-over-marks-in-progress
> > variable idea?  Or Drew's suggestion to bind revert-buffer-function to
> > 'ignore while dired-map-over-marks runs?  Both sound cleaner to me
> > than relying on inhibit-read-only, which is used in gazillion places.
> 
> FWIW, I have checked all of them appearing in dired.
> 
> While it is very likely that it is good to prevent an auto revert
> happening in the middle of any operation, the considerations of this
> being bad in some case seem quite theoretical to me.
> 
> If we really go the `revert-buffer-function' way, we would need to check
> that this doesn't have side effects, because the code that auto reverts
> still is executed and thinks that revert has been successfully
> performed.  We should then also check what happens when the directory is
> remote or handled by tramp, auto-revert-handler is set, such things.
> 
> Introducing `dired--map-over-marks-in-progress' sounds cleaner to me
> than that.

Fine by me, thanks.

Previous Next

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