bug#35287: dired-do-copy English beef-up

[Drew Adams]

> DA> What about the current existing messages when
> DA> there are failures, telling you to use `?' to
> DA> see the details (the `dired-log' output)?
> 
> You know even though the "?" works, but I never thought it is a good
> idea.
> 
> The user is probably typing fast into a 1000 different windows and there
> probably will be a lot of extraneous characters sent by him first to the
> thing that is expecting the question mark, before he notices he is being
> asked something.
> 
> So I would have the whole error message presented to him, with an 'Got
> that, Holmes? (type a full "yes" to acknowledge)' style showstopper,
> before letting him proceed, as failed copies are a serious matter.

The user is _not_ being asked anything.  She can type
`?' if/when she wants, to see the details - or not.

The `dired-do-*' operations are synchronous.  The user
cannot be typing fast into 1000 different windows while
it is working.  When it is done the user gets a message
about the possibility of using `?' to see details.  She
is not locked into any modal dialog - that message can
be ignored if she wants.  If she doesn't notice the
message it's not a big deal - like any other `message'
call.  The message is in `*Messages*' and it can be
acted on anytime - or not.

Consider that `dired-do-*' works for 1 or 2 files but
also for 1000 files.  `dired-log' is important in
providing details, but it is not critical - there is
no reason to force the user to stop and pay attention
(e.g. requiring some acknowledgement that she's seen
the message).

An alternative could be to always pop up the log buffer
(unless it is empty).  I think the existing behavior is
preferable, but that alternative could be an option.

I really don't think it's a big deal.  The info in the
log is not critical.  If it were then the dialog would
be handled differently.