Subject: Re: bug#60467: 30.0.50; primitive-undo: Changes to be undone by function different from announced

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2023 10:38:18 +0300

Ping! Ping!

Can we please finish handling of this issue?

> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
>  [email-masked], [email-masked]
> Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2023 10:46:30 +0300
> From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
> 
> Ping!
> 
> > Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
> >  [email-masked], [email-masked]
> > Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2023 17:27:52 +0300
> > From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
> > 
> > > Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2023 14:14:11 +0000
> > > From: Gregory Heytings <[email-masked]>
> > > cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], 
> > >     [email-masked], [email-masked]
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >> Well, that bug was already discussed at length six months ago, and the 
> > > >> minimal change that was in the end installed (59c3c53efa) introduced a 
> > > >> new bug.  Should we design another minimal change, at the risk of 
> > > >> introducing another bug?  ISTM that the safe thing to do is the 
> > > >> refactoring that was suggested.
> > > >
> > > > If there's no safer way than the refactoring suggested back then, we 
> > > > will have to stay with this regression in Emacs 29.1 and install a 
> > > > better fix only on master.  After all, the fact that buffer-modified-p 
> > > > is not undone is a minor inconvenience at best.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Indeed.  A safer way probably exists, but I would not dare writing that 
> > > patch.  I believe Stefan is in a better position to write it.
> > 
> > How about installing your patch, which you proposed back then, on
> > master, then?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>