From drew.adams@oracle.com Sun Jun 21 17:26:30 2009 Received: (at submit) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 22 Jun 2009 00:26:30 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (2008-06-10) on rzlab.ucr.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.5 Bayes not run. spammytokens:Tokens not available. hammytokens:Tokens not available. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=4.0 tests=AWL,FOURLA autolearn=no version=3.2.5-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [140.186.70.10]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with ESMTP id n5M0QMj5021340 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:26:24 -0700 Received: from mx10.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166]:42136) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1MIXMc-0002Yl-5p for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:26:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MIXMa-0004T6-R3 for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:26:22 -0400 Received: from rcsinet12.oracle.com ([148.87.113.124]:41760 helo=rgminet12.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 1MIXMa-0004T2-Gl for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:26:20 -0400 Received: from rgminet15.oracle.com (rcsinet15.oracle.com [148.87.113.117]) by rgminet12.oracle.com (Switch-3.3.1/Switch-3.3.1) with ESMTP id n5M0Q0ZI013554 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:26:02 GMT Received: from abhmt005.oracle.com (abhmt005.oracle.com [141.146.116.14]) by rgminet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.3.1/Switch-3.3.1) with ESMTP id n5M0QMqm026460 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:26:22 GMT Received: from dradamslap1 (/24.5.177.54) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:26:15 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: Subject: 23.0.95; bookmark format upgrade is incorrect Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:26:15 -0700 Message-ID: <2A172ED84C2848FC9426043F282B4E08@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: Acny0A3XPnkAWdi1QDWHgeREzNN/GA== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Source-IP: abhmt005.oracle.com [141.146.116.14] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090208.4A3ECFA8.0042:SCFSTAT5015188,ss=1,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) (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)' From kfogel@red-bean.com Thu Oct 8 23:29:26 2009 Received: (at 3646) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 9 Oct 2009 06:29:26 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (2008-06-10) on rzlab.ucr.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.5 Bayes not run. spammytokens:Tokens not available. hammytokens:Tokens not available. X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=4.0 tests=AWL autolearn=ham version=3.2.5-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 Received: from sanpietro.red-bean.com (Debian-exim@sanpietro.red-bean.com [66.146.206.141]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with ESMTP id n996TPQb018105 for <3646@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com>; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 23:29:26 -0700 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55462 helo=floss ident=kfogel) by sanpietro.red-bean.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mw8yi-0006Ai-PG for 3646@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:29:24 -0500 From: Karl Fogel To: 3646@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: "bookmark format upgrade is incorrect" Reply-To: Karl Fogel Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:29:24 -0400 Message-ID: <87fx9taxmj.fsf@red-bean.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Oct 02 19:10:20 2012 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Oct 2012 23:10:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38228 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TJBbY-0003xC-OU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 19:10:20 -0400 Received: from mail-qa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.216.44]:62206) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TJBbW-0003x4-E2 for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 19:10:19 -0400 Received: by mail-qa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id 25so1270720qao.3 for ; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:09:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:subject:reply-to:date:message-id:user-agent :mime-version:content-type; bh=xWIFWoTxk2tXBZeHHfAiuoedfxQ6odx6KTVnjL8alb4=; b=uqgpqKJnbnobWHuERye556OsXJstlAoHk2UzlUJZ1rcCy9JBeLJnZbIToa0yOpW1vT +E/s/u+RESo3FZiIM0RSLOr90Qtq5tZbcX4GI4USTZquczxFS38Bz7JvTSGPuyEPNu7J UQw65oWhP8uwV5USyUpGH+zhScujfZd4Redbg9j/DrIOFqYBj2j8l9oVxMvTrIx+J/jY Oia2qicAbOT5mqADDIle1Q7dyd5Hryz2yseWFaSAO03LLmbhhfzKRiJdOo99MJb2d0Sa 6ZMz3Q/x9zqCkjXH3FefGO5FaYWHCjmcro+Piq87E06XSApvYJiOSPy2SlE0yuhTms8d caAA== Received: by 10.229.136.136 with SMTP id r8mr131886qct.35.1349219383282; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:09:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from floss.red-bean.com ([32.166.208.54]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g18sm2727231qan.1.2012.10.02.16.09.41 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:09:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Karl Fogel To: control@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: "bookmark format upgrade is incorrect" Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 18:09:37 -0500 Message-ID: <87r4pgv5ce.fsf@floss.red-bean.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: tags 3646 wontfix 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. [...] Content analysis details: (1.6 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (kfogel[at]gmail.com) -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [209.85.216.44 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 1.5 FAKE_REPLY_C FAKE_REPLY_C X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list Reply-To: Karl Fogel 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: 1.6 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: tags 3646 wontfix 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. [...] Content analysis details: (1.6 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [209.85.216.44 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (kfogel[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 1.5 FAKE_REPLY_C FAKE_REPLY_C tags 3646 wontfix 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. Thanks, -Karl From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Oct 02 19:11:02 2012 Received: (at 3646-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Oct 2012 23:11:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38232 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TJBcD-0003y4-1P for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 19:11:01 -0400 Received: from mail-qa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.216.51]:62745) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TJBcA-0003xw-SX for 3646-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 19:10:59 -0400 Received: by qabj40 with SMTP id j40so1171121qab.3 for <3646-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:10:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:subject:reply-to:date:message-id:user-agent :mime-version:content-type; bh=N72yOUTErMEAxCL7XjYENKg1A1hdWbihy1R5got4cAw=; b=Bfh4M6RUHQ+db5LR83659fJHzPbXECjjAOjmJzY5tAriNY0OU78nfz0B9BJ1UYOUVO Fyvhqz4jMXoNpbTvYmvxbLLAdC6mfFAlqlBOB6g43h66MXp0JdFOxxUQpoDcopVVo977 T59kcz1OfXcUKGzkL9/dCZs6uJTnU8zxreR4j41qlxrE2IdLJVDt564yACOoATwnkhMd tx7htaTNzhr8lKqptw5RYaROJJxr0bbIPtLdjiAfwMJPlY9N376LVPFFoPgVRbLEChKm 0tzYesiDp59l+ybjF1UO1KhVVW85YLReQzTS2nPao71Mo5RuV+FHyFoshmy/eGqFwBOw WmVg== Received: by 10.49.71.8 with SMTP id q8mr8526554qeu.40.1349219424055; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:10:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from floss.red-bean.com ([32.166.208.54]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y17sm2727657qaa.2.2012.10.02.16.10.22 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:10:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Karl Fogel To: 3646-done@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: "bookmark format upgrade is incorrect" Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 18:10:20 -0500 Message-ID: <87mx04v5b7.fsf@floss.red-bean.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Closing, now that tagged as WONTFIX. [...] Content analysis details: (1.6 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (kfogel[at]gmail.com) -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [209.85.216.51 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 1.5 FAKE_REPLY_C FAKE_REPLY_C X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 3646-done X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list Reply-To: Karl Fogel 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: 1.6 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Closing, now that tagged as WONTFIX. [...] Content analysis details: (1.6 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [209.85.216.51 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (kfogel[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 1.5 FAKE_REPLY_C FAKE_REPLY_C Closing, now that tagged as WONTFIX. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Oct 02 20:05:30 2012 Received: (at 3646) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Oct 2012 00:05:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38274 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TJCSv-00062e-Nv for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:05:29 -0400 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com ([141.146.126.227]:27283) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TJCSt-00062P-EN; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:05:28 -0400 Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id q9304nGS031047 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 3 Oct 2012 00:04:50 GMT Received: from acsmt357.oracle.com (acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q9304nVT019158 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 3 Oct 2012 00:04:49 GMT Received: from abhmt106.oracle.com (abhmt106.oracle.com [141.146.116.58]) by acsmt357.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q9304lnx028870; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 19:04:49 -0500 Received: from dradamslap1 (/71.202.147.44) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 17:04:47 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Karl Fogel'" , <3646-done@debbugs.gnu.org> References: <2A172ED84C2848FC9426043F282B4E08@us.oracle.com> <87mx04v5b7.fsf@floss.red-bean.com> Subject: RE: bug#3646: "bookmark format upgrade is incorrect" Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 17:04:45 -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: <87mx04v5b7.fsf@floss.red-bean.com> Thread-Index: Ac2g8yFPJnuJhroNRJaWnrQUHcGPaAABx40Q X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 3646 Cc: 3646@debbugs.gnu.org, 3646@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 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: -2.3 (--) > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 4:10 PM > To: 3646-done@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@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. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 03 01:06:24 2012 Received: (at 3646) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Oct 2012 05:06:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38386 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TJHA7-0004Pw-J7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 01:06:24 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com ([209.85.223.172]:43730) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TJHA5-0004Po-R5 for 3646@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 01:06:22 -0400 Received: by iec9 with SMTP id 9so17298285iec.3 for <3646@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 22:05:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:subject:reply-to:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; bh=MZ9jA+xI1cpJWOFQUNuVa64lVv3xAt6wY2gPmXPFJPI=; b=IKHl05QW4FzTOztiSShSQuY1R5cFQo3GRzKsL4qhBU27D5saE+PjmFR+Gyut3k1GQ+ LTcrKrEyZM0Blk7WFoAPN6p/NNVFrorVubUyL5BZSU7A/44vcENh1OFrAwyyinZN5jQ0 Ui8VRcsu/8hlkN82jo0wyzFsYOpgENrj+xtTNCi4uf+O8Ua+ZEhyu8qAM35gNJORse+6 vLD63Ux7ldkb5lhTlIJ4aQklBWKg26pHXSIPkp/3aiT3/5W5r0wHxIsfXIq337d9s3ek WCdUaQ/0B3iP04RuV5YQNGkKN7WoYS1ElpQFYpO+JXGUfEqkrBgKeoeRHZCfPEj4Bkoj +ekw== Received: by 10.50.152.132 with SMTP id uy4mr829184igb.3.1349240745241; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 22:05:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from floss.red-bean.com ([108.101.9.115]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d19sm10454064igp.6.2012.10.02.22.05.42 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 02 Oct 2012 22:05:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Karl Fogel To: 3646@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: "bookmark format upgrade is incorrect" Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 00:05:40 -0500 Message-ID: <87k3v8uouz.fsf@floss.red-bean.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 3646 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list Reply-To: Karl Fogel 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: 0.1 (/) 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 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 03 01:18:51 2012 Received: (at 3646) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Oct 2012 05:18:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38395 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TJHMB-0004jh-AP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 01:18:51 -0400 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com ([141.146.126.227]:30952) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TJHM9-0004jY-4G for 3646@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 01:18:49 -0400 Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id q935IAPp021220 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 3 Oct 2012 05:18:11 GMT Received: from acsmt357.oracle.com (acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q935I9s3009426 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 3 Oct 2012 05:18:09 GMT Received: from abhmt114.oracle.com (abhmt114.oracle.com [141.146.116.66]) by acsmt357.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q935I9Nv013441; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 00:18:09 -0500 Received: from dradamslap1 (/71.202.147.44) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 22:18:08 -0700 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Karl Fogel'" , <3646@debbugs.gnu.org> References: <2A172ED84C2848FC9426043F282B4E08@us.oracle.com> <87k3v8uouz.fsf@floss.red-bean.com> Subject: RE: bug#3646: "bookmark format upgrade is incorrect" Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 22:18:05 -0700 Message-ID: <21362B26B4AD4D94B1EE05E5F2DAE66D@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: <87k3v8uouz.fsf@floss.red-bean.com> Thread-Index: Ac2hJNusTMv7l29BSaGLoJ+FLT5v9wAAXgAQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94] X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 3646 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 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: -6.3 (------) Got it. Thanks for the explanation. Too bad, but I understand. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 03 08:53:53 2012 Received: (at 3646) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Oct 2012 12:53:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38932 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TJOSW-0007jq-Ga for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 08:53:52 -0400 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.9]:54622) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TJOST-0007jd-7T for 3646@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 08:53:50 -0400 Received: from frontend1.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.180]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3XWxwh5lZHz4KK2n; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 14:53:08 +0200 (CEST) X-Auth-Info: Kiwmc4bJGhJLU9OnkVYor9opWbbkOhRbiXYNdAspopY= Received: from igel.home (ppp-93-104-158-56.dynamic.mnet-online.de [93.104.158.56]) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3XWxwh5L7Lzbbj5; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 14:53:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: by igel.home (Postfix, from userid 501) id 31685CA2B8; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 14:53:07 +0200 (CEST) From: Andreas Schwab To: Karl Fogel Subject: Re: bug#3646: "bookmark format upgrade is incorrect" References: <2A172ED84C2848FC9426043F282B4E08@us.oracle.com> <87k3v8uouz.fsf@floss.red-bean.com> X-Yow: I wonder if I could ever get started in the credit world? Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 14:53:07 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87k3v8uouz.fsf@floss.red-bean.com> (Karl Fogel's message of "Wed, 03 Oct 2012 00:05:40 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 3646 Cc: 3646@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 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: 0.8 (/) Karl Fogel 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@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." From unknown Fri Aug 15 20:26:32 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 11:24:03 +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