bug#12507: [debbugs-tracker] Processed: severity 12507 wishlist

[Drew Adams]

> > Am I wrong that `write-region' does not provide for backups?
> > If not, then this is clearly a bug, and a pretty serious one, IMO.
> 
> It would be annoying litter the filesystem with backups for every
> internal configuration file.

Why not let _users_ decide what is annoying to them and their filesystems?  Some
users (and I know some) might well want a backup file for their bookmarks.  See
bug #12503 for a hint why.

But if you've already decided that a fix for this bug is not to be, because it
is a bad idea for a user to back up her bookmark file, then why send this bug to
the wishlist instead of marking it wontfix?  Or does wishlist for you really
mean the same thing as wontfix?

> The abbrev file and desktop file are not
> backed up either, and I think that's fine.

Is your `custom-file' an "internal configuration file"?  Do you back it up?

It is not just about what you think is fine for users - not when it comes to
user data.  It's about what individual users think about their data.  Let them
decide, please.

And as I said, we even have a user option for whether you want your
bookmark-file backups to be numbered: `bookmark-version-control'.  Imagine that!
Besides `version-control', which applies to all files, we even give you a
special option that applies only to your bookmark file.

What do you think is the point of that option, if your bookmark file is in fact
NEVER backed up at all?  Do you not see a bug here?

> I wouldn't mind adding a global feature to optionally enable 
> backups for such files.

Fine.  Let users enable backups, please.  I have no problem with making that a
user option.

But in that case please document the fact that `bookmark-version-control' has no
effect when your new option is turned off (no backups).  Let's make it as clear
as possible how to (a) turn backing up on/off and (b) control the backup naming
when on.