From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Guerry Subject: Re: Release 5.23a Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:15:18 +0000 Message-ID: <87myp683ix.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> References: <876ACC10-F511-4735-B045-9C9AE248A25A@gmail.com> <47D5CC47.40107@cornell.edu> <87ve3urtzq.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <47D5D90E.8010508@cornell.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JYt5W-0006Pi-BR for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:15:30 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JYt5U-0006Ox-Ln for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:15:29 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JYt5U-0006Os-GZ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:15:28 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.155]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JYt5U-00044Y-7G for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:15:28 -0400 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id d23so2613399fga.30 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:15:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <47D5D90E.8010508@cornell.edu> (Xin Shi's message of "Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:57:50 -0400") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Xin Shi writes: > Is that possible to make it kill the buffer on the C-c C-e h case? Or > let user to customize this behavior? I don't know the reason to keep > that buffer in this case. I don't know what the default should be, I have no personal preference. I think it's quite useful to have the exported file accessible through the list of buffers even if you don't want to jump to it. But I certainly wouldn't go for an option about this. What people think? >> Note two differences with "publishing": (1) publishing require a file to >> be part of a project and (2) publishing will kill exported buffers. >> > I'm not sure where are these two differences comes from? Are they > behaviors in org or in general? I'm not sure what do you mean by "in general". In case of publishing, since you can publish a project from *any* buffer, it doesn't really make sense to keep the exported buffers alive, right? As for the (1), the truth is that it would be nice to be able to add a file to a project on the fly. -- Bastien