Subject: bug#8399: 23.3; save-some-buffers ignores buffer names

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 18:01:14 +0300

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked],  [email-masked],  [email-masked]
> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 16:48:57 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> > In the usual case, i.e. where the file name is not something invented
> > by a VM or somesuch, I think the file name is more useful, yes.  Or at
> > least it could be.  So maybe we should offer this as an optional
> > feature, as I presume the OP's use case is somewhat rare?
> 
> Sorry; I didn't see this before I made the change.

Sorry, I had communications problems that prevented me from responding
immediately.

> Does the new behaviour (showing both names if they're dissimilar)
> look OK to you?

I guess it's okay, except that it makes the message longer, so could
cause resizing of the echo-area more frequently.  But since the
additional text is only produced when there's more than one buffer
with the same base-name of its visited file name, I guess that's not a
disaster.  Let's see if users complain.

Thanks.