GNU bug report logs - #3646
23.0.95; bookmark format upgrade is incorrect

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 3646 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 3646 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: 23.0.95; bookmark format upgrade is incorrect
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:26:15 -0700

(defun bookmark-upgrade-version-0-alist (old-list)
  "Upgrade a version 0 alist OLD-LIST to the current version."
  (mapcar
   (lambda (bookmark)
     (let* ((name...))
       (list
        name
        `((filename             .    ,filename)
          (front-context-string .    ,(or front-str ""))
          (rear-context-string  .    ,(or rear-str  ""))
          (position             .    ,position)
          (annotation           .    ,ann)))))
   old-list))
 
The bookmark entry format being output by that code is this:
 
(NAME ((filename . FILE)
       (front-context-string . FRONT-STR)
       (rear-context-string  . REAR-STR)
       (position . POS)
       (annotation . ANNOTATION)))
 
And that is what is called the "old deprecated" format in the doc
string of `bookmark-alist'.  Upgrade should upgrade to the latest
format, not an old, deprecated one.
 
Further, "the old deprecated one" should be replaced by a precise
reference to the last Emacs version that _produced_ such a deprecated
format.  Things are currently doubly confusing because we "upgrade"
from the bookmark version 0 format to an "old deprecated" format - and
there is yet a third format: the current format.
 
 
In GNU Emacs 23.0.95.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
 of 2009-06-19 on SOFT-MJASON
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
configured using `configure --with-gcc (3.4)'
 

Message #10 received at 3646 <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com (full text, mbox):

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel <at> red-bean.com>
To: 3646 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: "bookmark format upgrade is incorrect" 
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:29:24 -0400

The actual situation is much, much worse than even this.

Because the recent format upgrade (to the "third" format) did not bump
`bookmark-file-format-version', ever since at least rev 1.114 (and
possibly before) bookmark.el has been potentially writing
`bookmark-alist' in a mixture of formats: some of the bookmarks in the
alist might be in format 2, and some might be in format 1.

I'm working on a fix.  It should be possible to detect 1 and migrate it
to 2 at the individual bookmark record level.

Message #17 received at 3646-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel <at> red-bean.com>
To: 3646-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: "bookmark format upgrade is incorrect"
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 18:10:20 -0500

Closing, now that tagged as WONTFIX.

Message #20 received at 3646 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: "'Karl Fogel'" <kfogel <at> red-bean.com>, <3646-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Cc: 3646 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 3646 <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com
Subject: RE: bug#3646: "bookmark format upgrade is incorrect"
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 17:04:45 -0700

> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 4:10 PM
> To: 3646-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> Closing, now that tagged as WONTFIX.

Hi Karl,

I don't quite understand.  Your previous message in this thread (10/08/2009,
below) said that there was a real problem, even worse than what I reported, and
that you were working on a fix.  What's the story?

Thx - Drew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Fogel Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 11:29 PM
> To: 3646 <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com
> 
> The actual situation is much, much worse than even this.
> 
> Because the recent format upgrade (to the "third" format) did not bump
> `bookmark-file-format-version', ever since at least rev 1.114 (and
> possibly before) bookmark.el has been potentially writing
> `bookmark-alist' in a mixture of formats: some of the bookmarks in the
> alist might be in format 2, and some might be in format 1.
> 
> I'm working on a fix.  It should be possible to detect 1 and 
> migrate it to 2 at the individual bookmark record level.

Message #29 received at 3646 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel <at> red-bean.com>
To: 3646 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: "bookmark format upgrade is incorrect"
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 00:05:40 -0500

Hey, Drew.

So, it's quite understandable you're confused -- the reason is that
Debbugs apparently *dropped* the rest of the body of the mail in which I
set this ticket to WONTFIX.

That is, the first line of my mail was

  "tags 3646 wontfix"

but then the rest of the mail said this:

  I'm tagging this as WONTFIX, because the cost/benefit ratio of fixing
  it is too low -- it's hard to fix, and there have been not many
  reports of it biting people in the wild.  Of course I have no way to
  know the real cost of not fixing it; the bug tracker is an imperfect
  channel.

  I did spend a long time working on fixing that interim format upgrade
  path.  It is clearly doable, but I didn't finish then and I've lost
  the head state (that was more than a year ago).

  If anyone has reason to think this bug is a major problem right now,
  please make a noise here.

But apparently I was just supposed to know that Debbugs would not
automatically attache my comments to the only bug mentioned in the
control line, and that I had to CC 3646@ or 3646-foo@ explicitly.

Hope the above explains it better.

See also http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=12507#105 .

Sigh :-).

Best,
-K

Message #32 received at 3646 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: "'Karl Fogel'" <kfogel <at> red-bean.com>, <3646 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: RE: bug#3646: "bookmark format upgrade is incorrect"
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 22:18:05 -0700

Got it.  Thanks for the explanation.  Too bad, but I understand.

Message #35 received at 3646 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Schwab <schwab <at> linux-m68k.org>
To: Karl Fogel <kfogel <at> red-bean.com>
Cc: 3646 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#3646: "bookmark format upgrade is incorrect"
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 14:53:07 +0200

Karl Fogel <kfogel <at> red-bean.com> writes:

> That is, the first line of my mail was
>
>   "tags 3646 wontfix"
>
> but then the rest of the mail said this:

You didn't close the command section with one of
`quit|stop|thank|thanks|thankyou|thank you'.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab <at> linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Previous Next

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