upvote

points

by dtech5 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby soraminazuki3 hours ago|
next
[-]
That's some weird technicality that has nothing to do with the issue while also being completely false.

https://github.com/neovim/neovim/blob/fc3f0041fbe01c96f38224...

The feature that was broken is called persistent undo. The feature was inherited from Vim. In case it's not obvious from the name, nowhere does it state in the docs for persistent undo that data may be deleted at any time.

https://neovim.io/doc/user/undo/#persistent-undo

That Neovim changed the default storage path for undo files is completely irrelevant to whether the contract for persistence should be broken.

reply
upvoteby kelnos13 minutes ago|
prev|
next
[-]
That's the wrong place to store it. Data like that should be under $XDG_STATE_HOME (~/.local/state/ by default).

I would consider deleting my persistent undo state, which would be something that I would have specifically enabled, to be "severely impacting".

reply
upvoteby MatthiasPortzel3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
NeoVim docs say it defaults to "$XDG_STATE_HOME/nvim/undo//". Do you have a source for ~/.cache?

=> https://neovim.io/doc/user/options/#'undodir'

reply
upvoteby buu7004 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
This reads to me like a case of blame on both sides. Putting data you don't want to lose in ~/.cache is PEBKAC, but if that fact is incidental and NeoVim would have removed the undo history regardless of its filesystem path, then the point remains valid that NeoVim is deleting user data that isn't its place to delete.

A lot of the comments here are getting caught up in legal arguments which may or may not be valid. Those are irrelevant. No one is taking the NeoVim developers to court; the post is merely warning that they knowingly accepted behavior which can cause harm. The question is whether or not that choice was responsible, not whether it's legally actionable.

reply
upvoteby 4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby 4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby wonnage4 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
So if a program decided it owned .cache and deleted it every startup you’d be fine with it?
reply
upvoteby yjftsjthsd-h2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Honestly, kinda? It'd be rude and cause a performance regression, but it shouldn't break anything.
reply
upvoteby dtech4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
What a weird straw-man. The comparison here is a program breaking compatibility with a file in ~/.cache/... and deleting it instead of providing compatibility. I'd do that without thinking about it twice.
reply
upvoteby freehorse2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I don't see it as a strawman. The comparison here is a program breaking compatibility with a file _used by another program_. If vim and neovim undo files are incompatible, why does neovim delete vim's file instead of using its own file name/extension and not caring about vim's undo? And why do they use the same subdirectory even? To me it is a case of a program deleting cached files of another program, which, as a user, I see as deleting user data that said program should have touched.
reply