[Bodo Eggert - Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 06:21:59AM +0100]
| Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 10:34:41PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
| >> On Mar 10 2007 22:27, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
| >> >On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 07:23:41PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
|
| >> >> Whether the 'working config file path' should change when you do
| >> >> 'Save as Alternate' or not, is a menuconfig axiom. Ask Sam Ravnborg
| >> >> if you want it changed :-)
| >> >
| >> >Current behaviour is not logical but on the other hand I do not
| >> >see a big need to make it so.
| >> >It seems that people very seldom uses "save alternate" anyway.
| >> >
| >> >But patches are welcome.
| >>
| >> ^_^ The patch has already been posted, has not it?
| > No.
| > Either we keep current behaviour
|
| , which is misleading,
|
| > or we change to the "normal"
| > behaviour with a "Save as..." as know from all other programs.
|
| , which is not desirable, as long as there is no "open" and "save" option
| also working as "normal".
|
| IMO the option should have the "Save a copy" semantics, since that's what the
| name suggests.
Please decribe me how should it work at all. I mean should we work with
a single _active_ file and then "Save a copy" just put a config snapshot
to some file but that will not affect an original file? Should we work
with any config file as text editors do? Just write your point of view
in details and give kernel community time to review...
| --
| Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say:
| 51. YEEEHA!!! What a CRASH!!!
|
| Fri?, Spammer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
Cyrill
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
