On Sun Jan 1 2012 Roland Winkler wrote:
> On Fri Dec 30 2011 Roland Winkler wrote:
> > If BBDB is using some hooks in the background, it can read and
> > modify bbdb-file (using bbdb-buffer) without ever creating the
> > *BBDB* buffer. So a solution could be to check for the auto-save
> > file only
On Fri Dec 30 2011 Roland Winkler wrote:
> If BBDB is using some hooks in the background, it can read and
> modify bbdb-file (using bbdb-buffer) without ever creating the
> *BBDB* buffer. So a solution could be to check for the auto-save
> file only when bbdb-file is actually read. Under normal
> c
> * Roland Winkler [2011-12-31 07:50:44 -0600]:
>
> -- Yet I am wondering once more: how do you end up in such a
> situation (more regularly?) that emacs leaves behind the auto-save
> data? If you quit an "emacs -Q", it will ask you whether you want to
> save any unsaved buffers. To the best of my
On Fri Dec 30 2011 Sam Steingold wrote:
> > * Roland Winkler [2011-12-30 04:06:39 -0600]:
> >
> > So a solution could be to check for the auto-save
> > file only when bbdb-file is actually read.
>
> I think this is done automatically by emacs.
If a file has auto-save data, emacs gives you a warn
> * Roland Winkler [2011-12-30 04:06:39 -0600]:
>
> So a solution could be to check for the auto-save
> file only when bbdb-file is actually read.
I think this is done automatically by emacs.
--
Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on Ubuntu 11.10 (oneiric) X 11.0.11004000
http://www.Petition
On Fri Dec 30 2011 Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> If bbdb-file is saved only when the user says to do so and/or at exit,
> then the bbdb-file will be older than the auto-save-file, which in
> turn will be older than the *bbdb* buffer. In this situation the user
> does *not* want to be asked about th
On Thu Dec 29 2011 Sam Steingold wrote:
> > * Roland Winkler [2011-12-29 10:54:29 -0600]:
> >
> > I am still confused. Why is the current behavior not appropriate for
> > your needs? If BBDB detects that you have an auto-save-file that is
> > newer than bbdb-file, why is it not OK to save it and t
> * Roland Winkler [2011-12-29 10:54:29 -0600]:
>
> I am still confused. Why is the current behavior not appropriate for
> your needs? If BBDB detects that you have an auto-save-file that is
> newer than bbdb-file, why is it not OK to save it and then go on?
when you are editing a file, would you
On Thu Dec 29 2011 Sam Steingold wrote:
> > * Roland Winkler [2011-12-29 02:48:14 -0600]:
> > On Wed Dec 28 2011 Sam Steingold wrote:
> >> If I set bbdb-check-auto-save-file to t, modify the db and not
> >> save it right away, I am asked all the time about recovering
> >> bbdb from the auto save f
> * Roland Winkler [2011-12-29 02:48:14 -0600]:
>
> On Wed Dec 28 2011 Sam Steingold wrote:
>> If I set bbdb-check-auto-save-file to t, modify the db and not save it
>> right away, I am asked all the time about recovering bbdb from the auto
>> save file.
>> with v2, I was asked this only when bbdb
On Wed Dec 28 2011 Sam Steingold wrote:
> If I set bbdb-check-auto-save-file to t, modify the db and not save it
> right away, I am asked all the time about recovering bbdb from the auto
> save file.
> with v2, I was asked this only when bbdb was first loaded, which was useful.
This is one of the
If I set bbdb-check-auto-save-file to t, modify the db and not save it
right away, I am asked all the time about recovering bbdb from the auto
save file.
with v2, I was asked this only when bbdb was first loaded, which was useful.
--
Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on Ubuntu 11.10 (oneiric)
12 matches
Mail list logo
