Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> skribis: > Ludovic Courtès (2014-10-14 23:17 +0400) wrote: > >> Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> skribis: >> >>> Currently when a user performs some REPL operation using Emacs UI – >>> e.g. installs a package from *Guix Package Info* buffer, information in >>> that buffer stays the same, and he needs to press "g" there to revert >>> the buffer. >> >> By “information in the buffer”, what do you have in mind? There’s >> highlighting of installed packages, and marks. Am I missing something? >> >> Pressing ‘g’ removes marks and updates highlighting. > > "Installed" column is also being changed. And in the list of installed > packages, deleted packages disappear (I mean if you delete some packages > and press "g" there). As for *Guix Package Info* buffer, there are many > differences between installed and not-installed packages. > > I have in mind that all data will be updated. Here is what revert > (pressing "g") does in a Guix buffer: > > - the existing data is erased (using ‘erase-buffer’); > - information about packages/generations is received again; > - it is inserted in the buffer.
OK. > I used to update information manually (before this change) and I think > that such auto-updating is natural and is exactly what a user expects. > Don't you agree? I do! (I even wondered if the Boolean to turn it off was necessary.) >> What if the operation fails? For instance, you carefully select a bunch >> of packages to install, and then the operation fails because of some >> transient networking error, say. In such a case, the *Guix Package >> Info* buffer should *not* be updated IMO, because that would mean losing >> all the marks for no reason. > > Auto-updating happens only if a REPL operation was successful. When a > debugger prompt is entered (for example when a user interrupts the > process with "C-c C-c"), buffers are not updated, so the marks will not > be lost. Perfect. > Thanks for asking, it led me to the idea that if a package operation was > "dry-run", then auto-updating shouldn't be performed as no changes were > made. I'll adjust the commit for this case (assuming that you agree > with that :-)) Yes, agreed. Ludo’.
