GNU bug report logs - #50842
28.0.50; problem with fill-paragraph

Previous Next

Full log

Message #41 received at 50842 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: No Wayman <iarchivedmywholelife <at> gmail.com>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 50842 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#50842: Fwd: bug#50842: 28.0.50; problem with fill-paragraph
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 10:48:00 -0400

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

> No Wayman <iarchivedmywholelife <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>>  The basic idea is to provide macros which make declaring a 
>>  reproduction case easier.
>
> It's an interesting idea, but I think it's unlikely that we'd 
> get many
> people to submit bug reports using something as complicated as 
> this,
> really.

I agree that elisp novices probably wouldn't author many reports 
themselves.
However, there's benefit beyond that.
We use a similar macro for diagnosing bugs with straight.el and 
there are users who know enough elisp
to write reports.
The first thing I do when I get a bug report is encode it via that 
macro and have the user who reported it run it/share results. That 
confirms that there is actually a bug and we're on the same page 
about what is expected/happening. It reduces the time wasted on 
"Oh yeah, I forgot to mention a step" or "Oh yeah, I forgot to do 
that step", etc. It's even more beneficial when you have multiple 
users effected by the same bug. IME, It's a lot more efficient to 
ask someone "please paste this in your *scratch* buffer, eval, and 
copy back the results".
Once the bug is closed, the body of the macro is often still 
useful as a regression test, too.

Again, just food for thought.

Previous Next

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