GNU bug report logs - #39504
27.0.60; [PATCH] eww/shr: Ensure faces of enclosing elements apply to <code> elements

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Kévin Le Gouguec <kevin.legouguec <at> gmail.com>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 39504 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#39504: 27.0.60; [PATCH] eww/shr: Ensure faces of enclosing elements apply to <code> elements
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 23:19:32 +0100

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

> Thanks; applied to Emacs 28.

Thanks Lars!

Just to be sure, are we fine with how things look on emacs-27?  I'm not
saying the situation there is unacceptable or anything; I'm just
wondering if we're comfortable with the behaviour change between 26 and
27 (cf. screenshots in the opening message).  It's a mostly cosmetic
issue anyway.


Speaking of cosmetic issues, how did you apply my patch?  AFAICT you
used

- my first patch's diff,
- my second patch's title,
- your own changelog entry.

Was there something unsatisfactory with my changelog entry?  I don't
care much either way, but I'm trying to tick as many boxes as I can to
take some load off the maintainers's shoulders; if you'd rather I just
dump a plain old diff, I might as well not bother with the changelog.

(Also, the second patch's title, "Introduce face for <code> elements",
refers to a new face introduced by the patch; the *first* patch does
*not* introduce a new face, which is why I gave it a different title.
Again, no biggy, it simply makes me question whether I should bother
with changelog entries.)


I actually thought committing a contributor's patch would be as simple
as running "git am" on the attached file, but I now notice that when I
download my patches using either Gnus's gnus-mime-save-part or
<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-emacs>, they contain a stray
'>' character on the first line.

(I have no idea what causes this; C-u g on the article also shows this
stray '>' char, which makes me think that it might have been added while
sending?  It definitely wasn't there when I created the patches with
"git format-patch".)

The point being that "git am" chokes on this extra '>', unless given
"--patch-format=mbox".

(Downloading the attachments from <https://debbugs.gnu.org/39504> works
fine FWIW.)


I know you are all pretty busy, I apologize if this falls into
nitpicking territory.  I'm just slightly embarrassed about the final
commit title, and confused about whether the changelog entries I wrote
were correct.

Previous Next

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