GNU bug report logs - #75834
[PATCH] Add missing custom :set to savehist-autosave-interval

Previous Next

Full log

Message #11 received at 75834 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ship Mints <shipmints <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 75834 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#75834: [PATCH] Add missing custom :set to
 savehist-autosave-interval
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2025 08:21:59 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 6:12 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: Ship Mints <shipmints <at> gmail.com>
> > Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2025 13:19:11 -0500
> >
> > * lisp/savehist.el (savehist-autosave-interval):
> > Correctly reset 'savehist-timer' when savehist-autosave-interval changes
> > via setopt or a Customize command.
>
> What does this do when the user loads savehist.el due to some
> Customize command, but doesn't activate savehist-mode?  Does it start
> the timer, for example?
>

The timer is established only when savehist mode is enabled and the
interval is non-nil.

> An open question is should the timer be an idle timer or not. Currently,
> the timer is a regular timer. I'd prefer
> > an idle timer. Not sure how many people would care if this changed.
>
> Why do you think an idle timer would be better?
>

I prefer idle timers for this kind of thing as I find auto saving while I'm
working to be distracting, and occasionally slows me down at least on my
slow computer, and barely noticeable on my fast one. As not everyone has
super fast modern equipment, I'm guessing we prefer to be respectful of
older setups. I have three autosave timers set up in my configuration, and
even one is distracting enough.

The timer I put in save-place is an idle timer, and now is a good time to
debate idle vs. absolute timers for these.

-Stephane

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Previous Next

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