Re: about the byte-opt.el patch

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

() Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>
() Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:50:05 +0300

   Is this change really a good idea?  It defeats the purpose of CVSREAD,
   doesn't it?

for a handful of files, yes.  and only yes, partially.  i use CVSREAD=1
primarily to be able to categorically determine that some file has not
been munged by me, accidentally.  in the case of "make bootstrap", file
munging is intentional...

   Perhaps it is better to change autoload.el so that it can
   update even read-only files, and preserve the read-only attribute of a
   file after it's finished updating its autoload cookies.  WDYT?

...and furthermore, if it is munged, i don't want it to appear (on quick
scan) unmunged.  now, if the munging produces no change in the text;
then that would be a good reason to chmod it back to read-only.  if such
"move-if-changed" checking can be added to autoload then i would support
having autoload deal w/ read-only files.

re-reading what i wrote above, it doesn't seem so clear (even to me)
what my thoughts are.  so let's just let the brain rest and give the
lazy soul some floor: why don't we leave it like so for now and revisit
this later if someone complains.

thi