bug#23033: 24.5; Lock file uses the same extension as the file it's locking

[Stefan Kangas]

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se> writes:
>
>> Much?  I'd say no.  It changes a little, in most cases, e.g.:
>>
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 skangas skangas      0 2021-09-25 02:02 .#foo#
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 skangas skangas     19 2021-09-25 03:33 foo
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 skangas skangas      0 2021-09-25 02:02 foob
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 skangas skangas      0 2021-09-25 02:01 foobar
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 skangas skangas      0 2021-09-25 02:00 .#foo.lock
>>
>> I guess this starts to matter more when you have a ton of files named
>> fooXXX.
>
> Ah, I see.  Well, perhaps adding a "#" at the end is the best fix here,
> then,

I'm not convinced that ls ordering (under some locales) is the most
important concern.

I don't even understand why you would need to see that file.  It almost
seems better to not see it at all, or keeping it outside of the
directory, given that we have many other things in place to help the
user notice and deal with file locking and conflicts.

> although it looks rather similar to the #auto-save# files then,
> which might confuse people...

That's a good point.

I just checked some other editors:

- vim uses ".foo.swp"
- nano uses ".foo.swp"
- VSCode has no swap file (or it's not in the directory)
- GEdit has no swap file (or it's not in the directory)

Just to give a rough idea of what's considered acceptable out there.