Miguel Ángel Arruga Vivas writes: > Hi Maxim and Christopher, > > Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> writes: >>[...] >> Christopher Lemmer Webber <cweb...@dustycloud.org> writes: >> [...] >>> I figured out what was happening! The bug is *technically* in vc-mode. >>> However, nontheless it manifested here... >>> >>> Here's what happened. vc-mode has some various hacks, as you can see >>> above with "hack-local-variables-apply"... which traverses the dirlocals >>> stuff. (Not sure what the purpose is, didn't look too long.) > > The file where these functions are located is lisp/files.el, right on > the Emacs core. Some modes add hooks there, like flyspell or cc, but > not vc, so I don't really think the problem is exclusive from that mode > after some debugging. > > This code ends up in file-local-variables-alist, even though > dir-local-variables-alist contains the correct values for some reason I > still don't really understand. > >>> However for whatever reason, vc-mode also seems to be reusing buffers >>> such as `*vc-diff*'... and somehow still is left in the directory >>> context it *first* was used in. > > This may be the culprit but I think it isn't the issue, as > file-local-variables-alist accumulates every eval marked as nil, not > only the first/last one... when it fails, as we've seen. > >>> Thus if I C-x v = in a guix-oriented buffer first, and then switch to >>> another completely different project and do the same, it's loading the >>> dirlocals from Guix(...!!!!) >>> >>> This is clearly a bug in vc-mode, I'll try to report it as such. > >> Thank you for the investigation. I'd be really happy if you could >> report the problem upstream (M-x report-emacs-bug) aznd link to it here! > > I haven't reported it yet, but as you can see I have a reproducer script > attached. I haven't seen anything in vc-code that points in that > direction, surely though Emacs people will have a better understanding. > > Christopher, would you mind to CC me if you open the bug? I can do it > too if you tell me to, but I don't want to create a duplicate entry if > we do it roughly at the same time.
It sounds like you're already putting together the work to do it. If you don't mind doing it that would save me a lot of time right now... I'm quite swamped! I'd be very grateful! >> [..] Miguel had written in IRC at the time of the initial report, but >> to no avail. > > Maxim, could you test the script to check if we can narrow the cases? > It shows the README in the emacs it opens, so it should be > straight-forward. > >>> In the meanwhile, I used this hacky "fix". Maybe worth applying for the >>> moment... what do you think of it? >> >> I'd like to have the upstream bug linked in that fix rather than the >> Guix one; that way it'll be possible to track upstream resolution and >> know when the workaround can be removed. > > Apart from the tracking reference, I agree that it's worth applying it. > And also, thank you both for making easier to work on guix. :-) Okay cool; since you two have already basically reviewed this code I'll just make the suggested change and push it to the master branch. Thank you!
