GNU bug report logs - #1477
23.0.60; Customize "not marked HIDDEN" is unclear

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 1477 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 1477 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

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

Message #5 received at submit <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com (full text, mbox):

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: <emacs-pretest-bug <at> gnu.org>
Subject: 23.0.60; Customize "not marked HIDDEN" is unclear
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:32:06 -0800

In Customize, I see this, just before the main set of buttons in the
buffer:
 
 "Operate on all settings in this buffer that are not marked HIDDEN:"
 
To me at least, that means nothing. Worse, it confuses me. What is it
trying to say?
 
What does it mean for a setting to be "marked HIDDEN"? I don't see any
"marks", and I don't see "HIDDEN" anywhere (and why uppercase?).  What
is "marking" in this context?  If I click `Hide Value' for some option
or `Hide Face' for some face, then that button's text changes to `Show
Value' or `Show Face' (not "HIDDEN").
 
If you are trying to say that those buttons (except `Exit') act on all
options and faces in the buffer whose definitions are visible, then
say that.  And put a box around these global buttons and the
explanation, or draw a line to separate them from the rest of the
buffer, or make it clear in some other way what the scope of this
explanation and these buttons is.
 
(The fact that we need to explain this at all just indicates, however,
how bad this UI is.)
 
 
 
In GNU Emacs 23.0.60.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
 of 2008-11-24 on LENNART-69DE564
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
configured using `configure --with-gcc (3.4) --no-opt --cflags -Ic:/g/include
-fno-crossjumping'
 

Message #10 received at 1477 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 1477 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: 23.0.60; Customize "not marked HIDDEN" is unclear
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 14:52:07 +0200

"Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com> writes:

> In Customize, I see this, just before the main set of buttons in the
> buffer:
>
>  "Operate on all settings in this buffer that are not marked HIDDEN:"
>
> To me at least, that means nothing. Worse, it confuses me. What is it
> trying to say?

Is this still an issue?  If I say `M-x customize', I don't get any
section with the word "HIDDEN" in it that I can see.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/

Message #13 received at 1477 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: "'Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen'" <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 1477 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: 23.0.60; Customize "not marked HIDDEN" is unclear
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:17:51 -0700

> > In Customize, I see this, just before the main set of buttons in the
> > buffer:  "Operate on all settings in this buffer that are not 
> > marked HIDDEN:"
> 
> Is this still an issue?  If I say `M-x customize', I don't get any
> section with the word "HIDDEN" in it that I can see.

No, this has been fixed.  Thx.

Message #20 received at 1477 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: "'Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen'" <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 1477 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#1477: 23.0.60; Customize "not marked HIDDEN" is unclear
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 14:50:51 -0700

> > Is this still an issue?  If I say `M-x customize', I don't get any
> > section with the word "HIDDEN" in it that I can see.
> 
> No, this has been fixed.  Thx.

I said no, it is not _still_ an issue.  It has been _fixed_.

It should have simply been closed, which records it as a _bug_ that has been
_fixed_.  It should not have been recorded as `notabug'.

`Not a bug' means that the behavior is confirmed (reproducible) and that it is
the intended behavior - not a bad behavior.

`Not a bug' does not mean that the behavior was not reproducible or that the
behavior was in fact incorrect but has been corrected.

Yes, it's a nit.  No, I don't really care, wrt this bug.  But as we're closing
lots of bugs left and right these days, let's please do it right, going forward.

And yes, I'm glad people are now looking at old bug reports and taking care of
them.  Thank you.  And yes, I know that there are a lot to look at and mistakes
happen.  Just a heads-up.

Message #23 received at 1477 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 1477 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#1477: 23.0.60; Customize "not marked HIDDEN" is unclear
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 23:58:47 +0200

"Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com> writes:

> It should have simply been closed, which records it as a _bug_ that
> has been _fixed_.  It should not have been recorded as `notabug'.

I thought "fixed" was if it was fixed as a result of the bug report, and
"notabug" was if it turned out (when investigated) that the report
reported something that wasn't a bug (ever or still).

Perhaps we need a third flag, like
"probablyabugatthetimeitwasreportedbutnotabugwhensomeonelookedatthebugreport"?

Or perhaps just close it without a flag.  Opinions?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/

Message #26 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Deniz Dogan <deniz <at> dogan.se>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#1477: 23.0.60; Customize "not marked HIDDEN" is unclear
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:21:49 +0200

On 2011-07-10 23:58, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> "Drew Adams"<drew.adams <at> oracle.com>  writes:
>
>> It should have simply been closed, which records it as a _bug_ that
>> has been _fixed_.  It should not have been recorded as `notabug'.
>
> I thought "fixed" was if it was fixed as a result of the bug report, and
> "notabug" was if it turned out (when investigated) that the report
> reported something that wasn't a bug (ever or still).
>
> Perhaps we need a third flag, like
> "probablyabugatthetimeitwasreportedbutnotabugwhensomeonelookedatthebugreport"?
>
> Or perhaps just close it without a flag.  Opinions?
>

If it was once a bug but was fixed before someone looked at the bug 
report, "fixed" seems appropriate to me.

Deniz

Message #29 received at 1477 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: "'Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen'" <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 1477 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#1477: 23.0.60; Customize "not marked HIDDEN" is unclear
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 15:25:32 -0700

> > It should have simply been closed, which records it as a _bug_ that
> > has been _fixed_.  It should not have been recorded as `notabug'.
> 
> I thought "fixed" was if it was fixed as a result of the bug 
> report, and "notabug" was if it turned out (when investigated)
> that the report reported something that wasn't a bug (ever or still).

That would be "not reproducible", I think.

To me, "not reproducible" refers to the time when you try to reproduce it.  In
other software you would also be trying to reproduce it using the same version
as the report, but that's another story.

To me, "not a bug" means that you _can_ reproduce the behavior as reported, and
it is the intended intended behavior.

I'm no expert on this.  And it's not a big deal - certainly not important for
this bug report.  It might be good to know what the designers of this bug system
had in mind, however.

> Perhaps we need a third flag, like
> "probablyabugatthetimeitwasreportedbutnotabugwhensomeonelooked
> atthebugreport"?

We can't really guess what might have been at the time.  We can only compare
what we test now with what was reported.

But in a case like this one, we could perhaps believe the OP who tested both
earlier and later, if he says it was fixed. ;-)
 
> Or perhaps just close it without a flag.  Opinions?

Is there a "not reproducible" category?  If so, I'd think that would be the
closest in a case like this.  Just one, non-expert opinion.

Previous Next

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