From unknown Thu Aug 14 12:20:02 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#1477 <1477@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#1477 <1477@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: 23.0.60; Customize "not marked HIDDEN" is unclear Reply-To: bug#1477 <1477@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 19:20:02 +0000 retitle 1477 23.0.60; Customize "not marked HIDDEN" is unclear reassign 1477 emacs submitter 1477 "Drew Adams" severity 1477 minor tag 1477 notabug thanks From drew.adams@oracle.com Tue Dec 2 15:32:12 2008 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (2007-08-08) on rzlab.ucr.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.2 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.2.3-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Received: (at submit) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 2 Dec 2008 23:32:12 +0000 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [140.186.70.10]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id mB2NW9W8003996 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:32:10 -0800 Received: from mx10.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166]:43819) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1L7eiV-0007fs-4O for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:31:43 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L7eit-0007uN-K4 for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:32:09 -0500 Received: from rcsinet11.oracle.com ([148.87.113.123]:55626 helo=rgminet11.oracle.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L7eit-0007u7-7I for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:32:07 -0500 Received: from rgminet15.oracle.com (rcsinet15.oracle.com [148.87.113.117]) by rgminet11.oracle.com (Switch-3.3.1/Switch-3.3.1) with ESMTP id mB2NWvR1019115 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 23:32:58 GMT Received: from acsmt702.oracle.com (acsmt702.oracle.com [141.146.40.80]) by rgminet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.3.1/Switch-3.3.1) with ESMTP id mB2NW8sa030586 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 23:32:09 GMT Received: from dradamslap1 (/141.144.65.247) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:32:00 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: Subject: 23.0.60; Customize "not marked HIDDEN" is unclear Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:32:06 -0800 Message-ID: <001701c954d6$30970d30$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AclU1jA1DKJPIbeQTzKNchBiIh6U3A== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Source-IP: acsmt702.oracle.com [141.146.40.80] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A010204.4935C572.00B6:SCFSTAT928724,ss=1,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) 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' From rgm@gnu.org Thu Dec 11 20:04:49 2008 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (2007-08-08) on rzlab.ucr.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.0000 Tokens: new, 19; hammy, 38; neutral, 39; spammy, 0. spammytokens: hammytokens:0.000-+--H*UA:Emacs, 0.000-+--H*r:140.186.70, 0.000-+--H*r:ip*140.186.70.10, 0.000-+--H*r:sk:fencepo, 0.000-+--H*MI:fencepost X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_SUBJECT, NOSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,VALID_BTS_CONTROL,X_DEBBUGS_NO_ACK autolearn=ham version=3.2.3-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Received: (at control) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 12 Dec 2008 04:04:49 +0000 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [140.186.70.10]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id mBC44lNs012484 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:04:48 -0800 Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1LAzG4-00083o-Hu; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:04:08 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18753.58040.527622.804999@fencepost.gnu.org> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:04:08 -0500 From: Glenn Morris To: control X-Attribution: GM X-Mailer: VM (www.wonderworks.com/vm), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs) X-Hue: blue X-Ran: tr>(Ro78]-RHzMlTLX.3Kv''26#Zfw*7tAPaW^hDw^7wBR=#X4w%O/G4-:-B#z\QB>[i&E X-Debbugs-No-Ack: yes tags 1471 moreinfo severity 1477 minor severity 1478 minor reassign 1485 emacs,w32 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 10 09:01:06 2011 Received: (at 1477) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jul 2011 13:01:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QftdC-0002VL-Ko for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 09:01:06 -0400 Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QftdA-0002Un-Hk for 1477@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 09:01:05 -0400 Received: from cm-84.215.51.58.getinternet.no ([84.215.51.58] helo=quimbies.gnus.org) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qftcy-0008V2-9w; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 15:00:52 +0200 From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: 23.0.60; Customize "not marked HIDDEN" is unclear In-Reply-To: <001701c954d6$30970d30$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:32:06 -0800") Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 14:52:07 +0200 Message-ID: References: <001701c954d6$30970d30$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Now-Playing: Baby Dee's _Regifted Light_: "On the Day I Died" X-Hashcash: 1:23:110710:drew.adams@oracle.com::N9MBDi2spj10ebLB:00000000000000000000000000000000000000002znW X-Hashcash: 1:23:110710:1477@debbugs.gnu.org::lm8yCGMR80SQ28Rc:00000000000000000000000000000000000000000Rr+g MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-MailScanner-ID: 1Qftcy-0008V2-9w X-Netfonds-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Netfonds-MailScanner-From: larsi@gnus.org MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1310907652.40524@3VMbsyZDFwVxrnR9/Bojhw X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 1477 Cc: 1477@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) "Drew Adams" 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/ From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 10 13:18:19 2011 Received: (at 1477) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jul 2011 17:18:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qfxe6-0007sM-Qr for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 13:18:19 -0400 Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com ([148.87.113.117]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qfxe4-0007sA-ET for 1477@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 13:18:17 -0400 Received: from rtcsinet21.oracle.com (rtcsinet21.oracle.com [66.248.204.29]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p6AHI8QG021988 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:18:10 GMT Received: from acsmt358.oracle.com (acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158]) by rtcsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6AHI7dJ007437 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:18:07 GMT Received: from abhmt104.oracle.com (abhmt104.oracle.com [141.146.116.56]) by acsmt358.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p6AHI158013495; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 12:18:01 -0500 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.32.168) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:18:01 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen'" References: <001701c954d6$30970d30$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> Subject: RE: 23.0.60; Customize "not marked HIDDEN" is unclear Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:17:51 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Acw/AW8yD9tkV7u+RYmTblCRqYZDvQAI8YFg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 X-Source-IP: rtcsinet21.oracle.com [66.248.204.29] X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090201.4E19DED2.005D:SCFSTAT5015188, ss=1, re=-4.000, fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 1477 Cc: 1477@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) > > 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. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 10 17:35:37 2011 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jul 2011 21:35:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg1f7-0007DQ-Em for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:35:37 -0400 Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg1f5-0007DB-QD for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:35:36 -0400 Received: from cm-84.215.51.58.getinternet.no ([84.215.51.58] helo=quimbies.gnus.org) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg1eu-0006to-2m for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 23:35:24 +0200 Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 23:35:23 +0200 Message-Id: To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #1477 X-MailScanner-ID: 1Qg1eu-0006to-2m X-Netfonds-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Netfonds-MailScanner-From: larsi@gnus.org MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1310938524.29076@EfbnCrUpFdbHHvyuBc90mg X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) tags 1477 notabug close 1477 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 10 17:51:17 2011 Received: (at 1477) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jul 2011 21:51:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg1uG-0008Pz-Sr for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:51:17 -0400 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com ([141.146.126.227]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg1uE-0008Pl-Ia for 1477@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:51:15 -0400 Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p6ALp6PQ027756 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:51:08 GMT Received: from acsmt358.oracle.com (acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6ALp5LJ015456 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:51:06 GMT Received: from abhmt118.oracle.com (abhmt118.oracle.com [141.146.116.70]) by acsmt358.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p6ALp0AE021234; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:51:00 -0500 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.32.168) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 14:50:59 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen'" References: <001701c954d6$30970d30$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> Subject: RE: bug#1477: 23.0.60; Customize "not marked HIDDEN" is unclear Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 14:50:51 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Acw/AW8yD9tkV7u+RYmTblCRqYZDvQAI8YFgAAlIpBA= X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090202.4E1A1ECC.0085:SCFMA922111,ss=1,re=-4.000,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 1477 Cc: 1477@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) > > 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. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 10 17:59:03 2011 Received: (at 1477) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jul 2011 21:59:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg21n-000092-2p for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:59:03 -0400 Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg21l-00008Y-Dp for 1477@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:59:02 -0400 Received: from cm-84.215.51.58.getinternet.no ([84.215.51.58] helo=quimbies.gnus.org) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg21a-00079P-5n; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 23:58:50 +0200 From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#1477: 23.0.60; Customize "not marked HIDDEN" is unclear In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Sun, 10 Jul 2011 14:50:51 -0700") Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 23:58:47 +0200 Message-ID: References: <001701c954d6$30970d30$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwAgMAAAAqbBEUAAAADFBMVEW6sKJ3VzyUhG+Gclm2 JondAAACO0lEQVQokUWSv0sbYRjHv6S0RPvDqQ6dRGiRWGuXLgWXjp09gw3x0jWBZgrRpLn3SJYQ wUxCKSohYI1v8E4KifUkOcF/oC3Eo4YmwUW8VK+UnmcuXN6mtrSf5Xk+05eH5wsR/7iG+f/igp68 Gn+FFgpjHvogJ4qD4M8lSqkuKblcEjxjXSpnbDmTF8ETtqfQcaEoKRSszYpta4v0aFWByzAVueZE NfveB6CqtSt+M+rvUQU57Bwyk+caUqvQz8prpOxNkHbrIUR3qi44QmReH6OIZeUFzk8TAaoHwUdW XxqhRWd79DiE2V55ZNizlP/sLtzEXPMHVqQyPVpsDSFW7ai9s6DdoEoFAivVzBN2IRw3+qKumRHT O3NgxZsg6/c7JsdNT2q/xSyZnL+mNb0LKoTNqdNlJvP9uywEUqXnlUPH64tbGoJBIz1RS/ijX1QZ ibBwZ6C7W/9GbRW8PXZD3jztLIbsHeiPPamT3WebWdKTkYTrLCTk38tRu4J9TCRYVAlMmS4HIkrE 6LBXn9bdJ9gXWdHac1j86SOCg9GLLerb8XeXhqLg136i2zS+ljeKEZDDwsj4zOrAu+G6g7C07clM U2Tas6eYU7+v56XMIDX4I/iWjyWdZtukaRqIWS9sKhXVRpJdQmea42wY6kewMKgiyOd1QVlBkcKN HtWFqvjm6vvjb5nqXLqvdg9lJtHP/7RGTE+aWtwI3Lo+ScAkmtKIY6Uhe8Fi6bs8z0V8mS4Hjmvd 5l4/qXF9fgFh5EUXfJ5UMgAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== X-Now-Playing: Stephen O'Malley & Atsuo's _Uroborus Cricuit_: "(untitled)" X-Hashcash: 1:23:110710:1477@debbugs.gnu.org::NV32/RzVMaMrE6FN:000000000000000000000000000000000000000005ZFc X-Hashcash: 1:23:110710:drew.adams@oracle.com::RDvUZyN2Jq6v21iG:0000000000000000000000000000000000000000pN9r MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-MailScanner-ID: 1Qg21a-00079P-5n X-Netfonds-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Netfonds-MailScanner-From: larsi@gnus.org MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1310939930.24939@HLay3mMIa66qi4YKp8Z4sg X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 1477 Cc: 1477@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) "Drew Adams" 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/ From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 10 18:22:40 2011 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jul 2011 22:22:41 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg2Oe-0000gC-Gl for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:22:40 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg2Ob-0000fz-Oo for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:22:38 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg2OV-0005Wl-8W for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:22:32 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]:47842) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg2OU-0005Wh-QO for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:22:31 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:56949) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg2OT-0005vZ-G0 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:22:30 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg2OR-0005W3-IA for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:22:28 -0400 Received: from ch-smtp04.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.153.5]:44831) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg2OR-0005Vv-8w for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:22:27 -0400 Received: from c80-216-105-155.bredband.comhem.se ([80.216.105.155]:55249 helo=[192.168.0.10]) by ch-smtp04.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg2O4-00010B-EG for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:22:06 +0200 Message-ID: <4E1A25FD.7080600@dogan.se> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:21:49 +0200 From: Deniz Dogan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#1477: 23.0.60; Customize "not marked HIDDEN" is unclear References: <001701c954d6$30970d30$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: 80.216.105.155 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1Qg2O4-00010B-EG. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp04.sth.basefarm.net 1Qg2O4-00010B-EG 811ed00823bc5493e8aa2661c4704494 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.17 X-Spam-Score: -5.8 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -5.9 (-----) On 2011-07-10 23:58, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote: > "Drew Adams" 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 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 10 18:25:57 2011 Received: (at 1477) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jul 2011 22:25:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg2Ro-0000ke-VZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:25:57 -0400 Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com ([148.87.113.117]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg2Rn-0000kR-Hf for 1477@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:25:56 -0400 Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p6AMPlAB019535 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:25:49 GMT Received: from acsmt358.oracle.com (acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6AMPkou000596 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:25:47 GMT Received: from abhmt118.oracle.com (abhmt118.oracle.com [141.146.116.70]) by acsmt358.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p6AMPfGW002657; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:25:41 -0500 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.32.168) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 15:25:40 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen'" References: <001701c954d6$30970d30$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> Subject: RE: bug#1477: 23.0.60; Customize "not marked HIDDEN" is unclear Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 15:25:32 -0700 Message-ID: <54C36CE4A54340728295DD511061E6B3@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Acw/TJXJbeWOUyIHQKSmR3KVHQFvigAAokvQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090203.4E1A26ED.007D:SCFMA922111,ss=1,re=-4.000,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 1477 Cc: 1477@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) > > 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. From unknown Thu Aug 14 12:20:02 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 11:24:07 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator