Re: [PATCH] Keep network security info buffers after use

[Kévin Le Gouguec]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> >> From: Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com>
>> >> Cc: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> >> Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2023 10:34:32 -0500
>> >> 
>> >> "The inspection" can be an arbitrarily complex process, during 
>> >> which the user should have all the usual power of Emacs available.
>> >
>> > You always have the possibility of aborting the connection with C-g
>> > and then doing all those arbitrarily complex processes.
>> 
>> But C-g dismisses the *Certificate Details* buffer, so that makes an
>> "arbitrarily complex" inspection somewhat hard to proceed with?
>
> Who said that those complex processes need those details?  No
> specifics were brought up about those complex processes, so we are all
> basically waving hands, and each one of us has some different mental
> picture about what's involved.  This doesn't tend to lead towards
> effective discussion with any useful outcome.

(Point taken)

>> All I can say is that the first time I met this prompt, my reflexes were
>> 
>> * C-x o                 - "Ah, right; rmc, can't do that"
>> * C-g; C-x b Cert TAB   - "Oh, drats; the buffer was killed"
>
> I guess you haven't read the prompt, because my reflex was to type 'd'
> and read there.

Apologies for not being clear enough; I did read "the prompt" (the
accept-choices one) and did immediately hit 'd'.  In my message, "this
prompt" referred to the details-choices prompt, when faced with the
*Certificate Details* buffer.

IOW my reflex when faced with this kind of infodump is moving point
there and highlighting stuff as I read through.  Full-screen paging back
and forth is not my preferred reading method, even for cursory skimming.

>> So FWIW (a) would have had my vote, and FWIW² I'd have been fine with it
>> being optional & off by default.  But now that I know about rmc
>> leveraging query-replace-map and the C-r escape hatch, no strong
>> opinion.
>
> Thanks for sharing, so I guess your personal conclusion is that
> nothing needs to be done, yes?

Right, though I'd still take an opt-in knob to let *Certificate Details*
linger post-quit over having to remember about recursive edits.

Apologies if a convincing counter-argument has been made against such a
knob; my attention to the list these past couple of days might not have
been as sharp as I would have wished.