GNU bug report logs - #53749
29.0.50; [PATCH] Xref backend for TeX buffers

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry <at> gutov.dev>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, David Fussner <dfussner <at> googlemail.com>
Cc: 53749 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp, arash <at> gnu.org, stefankangas <at> gmail.com, tsdh <at> gnu.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
Subject: bug#53749: 29.0.50; [PATCH] Xref backend for TeX buffers
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:54:30 +0300

On 08/06/2024 15:38, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: David Fussner<dfussner <at> googlemail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 10:46:10 +0100
>> Cc: Stefan Monnier<monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,dgutov <at> yandex.ru,53749 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
>> 	ikumi <at> ikumi.que.jp,arash <at> gnu.org,stefankangas <at> gmail.com,tsdh <at> gnu.org
>>
>> Hi Eli, Stefan, and Dmitry,
>>
>> In case the changeset might prove acceptable for version 30, I attach
>> the latest patch, which clears out the code I was using to simplify
>> testing of the AUCTeX modes. I can if requested send a patch for the
>> manual etags tests, also, in case that might prove helpful down the
>> line.
> Thanks, I'm still waiting for answers to my question:
> 
>> On Sat, 25 May 2024 at 12:01, Eli Zaretskii<eliz <at> gnu.org>  wrote:
>>> How should we proceed about this bug report?  Is David's last
>>> changeset acceptable or isn't it?

To the extent that I can evaluate the code, it look pretty good.

And it's an additive change, so I don't see blockers to installing it.

Previous Next

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