GNU bug report logs - #11318
[Patchset] A bugfix and an arguable bugfix for ediff-inferior-compare-regions

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 11318 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 11318 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dave Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: [Patchset] A bugfix and an arguable bugfix for
	ediff-inferior-compare-regions
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:28:24 -0400

These patches apply against the emacs-24 branch from 2012-04-23 15:26:22 EST

The first one is definitely a bugfix.  The second one depends on the
first and corrects a behavior that I consider to be buggy, though
others may disagree.

[PATCH 1/2] BUGFIX: select current-diff-comparison regions for
[PATCH 2/2] Useful behavior for ediff-inferior-compare-regions when

Message #8 received at 11318 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Dave Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com>
Cc: 11318 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#11318: [Patchset] A bugfix and an arguable bugfix for
	ediff-inferior-compare-regions
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 21:05:35 -0400

merge 11318 11319
stop

> [PATCH 1/2] BUGFIX: select current-diff-comparison regions for
> [PATCH 2/2] Useful behavior for ediff-inferior-compare-regions when

As you can see, this style of sending patches is sub-optimal, since each
mail created a separate bug report, including this one, which I am now
merging with "patch 1".

Message #13 received at 11318 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dave Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 11318 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#11318: [Patchset] A bugfix and an arguable bugfix for
	ediff-inferior-compare-regions
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 21:40:04 -0400

on Wed May 09 2012, Glenn Morris <rgm-AT-gnu.org> wrote:

> merge 11318 11319
> stop
>
>> [PATCH 1/2] BUGFIX: select current-diff-comparison regions for
>> [PATCH 2/2] Useful behavior for ediff-inferior-compare-regions when
>
> As you can see, this style of sending patches is sub-optimal, since each
> mail created a separate bug report, including this one, which I am now
> merging with "patch 1".

Sorry about that.  I'll try something else next time around.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com

Message #16 received at 11318 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Dave Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com>, 11318 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#11318: [Patchset] A bugfix and an arguable bugfix for
	ediff-inferior-compare-regions
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 00:04:36 -0400

> As you can see, this style of sending patches is sub-optimal, since each
> mail created a separate bug report, including this one, which I am now
> merging with "patch 1".

Arguably, debbugs (sh|c)ould pay attention to the References: (or
In-reply-to:) header to automatically put the replies in the same bug as
their "parent" message.


        Stefan

Message #19 received at 11318 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: Dave Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com>, 11318 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#11318: [Patchset] A bugfix and an arguable bugfix for
	ediff-inferior-compare-regions
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 00:20:04 -0400

Stefan Monnier wrote:

> Arguably, debbugs (sh|c)ould pay attention to the References: (or
> In-reply-to:) header to automatically put the replies in the same bug as
> their "parent" message.

It does (I added this feature), but:

a) It needs time (I think) to process the first message and update the
bug index with the message-id, so if all messages arrive at the same
instant, it doesn't work.

b) I made the decision to require a subject starting with "Re:" for this
to take effect, because sometimes people reply to an old message and
change the subject with the intention of creating a new report.
(I'm pretty sure I've said this before.)
I'm feeling like I should admit defeat on this aspect, since it seems
people just love messing around with the subject header.


I also added something that makes [patch] equivalent to

Tags:patch

But it's never been an advertised convention for any Emacs mailing list
AFAIK, and it makes me grumpy. :)
I've always assumed it came from the linux kernel and is now the [in thing].

But let's not turn this into another BEGIN_SRC derail...

Message #22 received at 11318 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Dave Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com>, 11318 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#11318: [Patchset] A bugfix and an arguable bugfix for
	ediff-inferior-compare-regions
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 13:18:45 -0400

>> Arguably, debbugs (sh|c)ould pay attention to the References: (or
>> In-reply-to:) header to automatically put the replies in the same bug as
>> their "parent" message.
> It does (I added this feature), but:

Good, thanks.  I did remember you adding such a thing, but I figured it
must have been something slightly different.

> a) It needs time (I think) to process the first message and update the
> bug index with the message-id, so if all messages arrive at the same
> instant, it doesn't work.

Oh, yes, that's a real bummer.  So we'd have to sequentialize processing
of incoming messages (if it's not done yet) and handle the message-ids
both ways: i.e. recognize when a message comes after its reply and put
it in the same bug-id.  That could be tricky/risky indeed.

> b) I made the decision to require a subject starting with "Re:" for this
> to take effect, because sometimes people reply to an old message and
> change the subject with the intention of creating a new report.
> (I'm pretty sure I've said this before.)
> I'm feeling like I should admit defeat on this aspect, since it seems
> people just love messing around with the subject header.

Is there an easy way to see (in retrospect) whether this "Re:" filtering
did the right thing more often than not?

> I also added something that makes [patch] equivalent to
> Tags:patch

Great, tho it doesn't seem to be used much.


        Stefan

Message #29 received at 11318 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dave Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 11318 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#11318: [Patchset] A bugfix and an arguable bugfix for
	ediff-inferior-compare-regions
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 22:30:58 -0400

on Wed May 09 2012, Glenn Morris <rgm-AT-gnu.org> wrote:

> merge 11318 11319
> stop
>
>> [PATCH 1/2] BUGFIX: select current-diff-comparison regions for
>> [PATCH 2/2] Useful behavior for ediff-inferior-compare-regions when
>
> As you can see, this style of sending patches is sub-optimal, since each
> mail created a separate bug report, including this one, which I am now
> merging with "patch 1".

Sub-optimal style aside, how about applying these patches?  As far as I
can tell (and I might be misreading), they have not yet been applied.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.