Hi Samuel, Samuel Wales <[email protected]> writes:
> typical example of last one: > > === > * bastien > #+begin_src org > bastien > ^bastien > #+end_src > * bastien > === > > put point at ^, fill-paragraph, undo. with undo-tree, at least, the > buffer will be corrupted. Not for me. This has surely to do with undo-tree. > one thing org sometimes does is try to set buffer-undo-list. it's > really for speed imo. i can't think of any reason why org really > needs it. perhaps i am mistaken and there is a really good reason for > such things, but i suspect it has caused a lot of bugs. I can safely say this is *never* for speeding things up, it's for preserving the undo list state. > in the case of c-c ', i would prefer having the indentation adding > show up as an undo entry [or whatever would happen if we ripped out > the undo-related setting]. Unless I misunderstand, the addition of indentation is not manually done, so it should not be part of the undo list. > even when there is not a bug per se, when you edit a source block, > there is a gap in the undo record. like nixon's tape gap during > watergate, it raises questions. :/ :) > to me, undo is a low-level feature that should never be buggy or > surprising. if it is, then anything that causes those should be > ripped out, even if it means losing a fancy undo-related feature. Fully agreed. Let's raise bugs in this area when you have time and when the bug can be isolated from other third-part package. Maybe that's me not being able to reproduce the ones you mention, but other people can chime in too, if the bug is real. Thanks! -- Bastien
