[PATCH] emacs: show: stop stderr appearing in buffer

[Tomi Ollila]

On Thu, Sep 12 2013, Mark Walters <markwalters1009 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, David Bremner <david at tethera.net> wrote:
>>> Ideally, we would put this output in the notmuch errors buffer but the
>>> handler is called asynchronously so we don't know when the output will
>>> appear. Thus if we put it straight into the errors buffer it could get
>>> interleaved with other errors, otoh we can't easily tell when we
>>> have got all the error output so can't wait until the process is complete.
>>
>> Hi Mark;
>>
>> I think your patch is OK, but would it be much harder to created a named
>> buffer like *notmuch-view-$message-d* ? (using e.g. the code from
>> notmuch-show). I might make debugging easier.
>
> Yes this is easy. There are several possibilities and I am not sure
> which is best (some are clearly bad but are worth mentioning anyway).
>
> 1) have a single buffer for part errors; this would accumulate stuff and
> output seems to get interleaved so this is probably useless.
>
> 2) have a buffer for each part viewer as you describe.
>
> 3) have a buffer for each part viewer but start its name with a space so
> it doesn't show up in buffer lists but is findable (maybe)
>
> 4) stick with just the temp buffer approach


Maybe check whether the temp buffer is empty. if not, use
(buffer-string) & (notmuch-logged-error) to append the message
to the *Notmuch errors* buffer... just that notmuch-logged-error
signals an error which we may not want to do...

We could unify to "*Notmuch Messages*" and have more functions to 
append data there... somewhat analogous to current *Messages* buffer
just that that one has so much noise...

Tomi


>
> Also, we could have it togglable with some sort of debug flag. In some
> senses 3 is nice but you would probably end up with 10's or even
> hundreds of hidden buffers which seems bad. In 2 you see them so you
> probably kill them as you go but I think they would be pretty
> annoying. A key difference from the accumulated show/search/pick buffers
> is that, at some point, you did want to see those buffers.
>
> Since all these approaches are easy to implement it is really up to us
> which we want.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Mark
>
>
>>
>> Of course those buffers would accumulate, along with show, search and
>> pick buffers...
>>
>> Or we could push this as is, and add some debugging facility later like
>> a variable notmuch-view-errors-buffer.
>>
>> d
> _______________________________________________
> notmuch mailing list
> notmuch at notmuchmail.org
> http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch