[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Trouble with texinfo-multiple-files-update
From: |
Alan Mackenzie |
Subject: |
Re: Trouble with texinfo-multiple-files-update |
Date: |
Sun, 2 Jun 2013 19:16:07 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
Hi, Eli.
On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 09:23:41PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 18:05:32 +0000
> > Cc: address@hidden
> > From: Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden>
[ .... ]
> > Yes. I would prefer a command that Does One Thing And Does It Well,
> > simply creating the main menu from the existing entries in the other
> > files. There's no harm having an option to update those too, though.
> That's what that command does: its default is to update the top-level
> menu in each individual file that is part of the manual. Each file is
> a full chapter. The updating of the master menu is the optional
> behavior, invoked with C-u.
Yes. My point is, why can't the updating of the master menu, which is a
coherent action in its own right, be performed independently of updating
the individual *.texi's?
> > > Why do you care about the fact that they are modified? Emacs does
> > > that elsewhere, e.g., when you "M-q" in a paragraph that is already
> > > filled. You don't become nervous then, do you? So why here?
> > I'm not so much nervous as irritated - I've got to deal with 54
> > "changed" buffers, otherwise they'll be hanging around my desktop
> > forever. And I don't want to save them, since that will overwrite the
> > files' timestamps.
> Why do you care about files' timestamps?
I just do. I find the question rather strange. Who wouldn't care about
timestamps? They provide a rapid, convenient insight into the activity
in the directory, in fact in any directory. For example, I see most
files.texi unchanged since 2013-01-25 (when I presumably cloned the
repository), and several at various points since (when I updated the
repo). killing.texi hasn't been changed at all, but windows.texi was
changed as recently as May.
> bzr doesn't, and neither should you, because you will need to run "make
> info" anyway, due to the fact that you added a node to the manual.
> What am I missing?
I'm not sure - I think we're talking at cross purposes, somehow.
[ .... ]
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Trouble with texinfo-multiple-files-update, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2013/06/02