From unknown Fri Sep 12 19:58:02 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#78983 <78983@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#78983 <78983@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: 30.1; Strange reference to "Emacs 10.31" in fileio.c Reply-To: bug#78983 <78983@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2025 02:58:02 +0000 retitle 78983 30.1; Strange reference to "Emacs 10.31" in fileio.c reassign 78983 emacs submitter 78983 Ulrich M=C3=BCller severity 78983 normal thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Jul 09 12:44:06 2025 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Jul 2025 16:44:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51886 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uZXtu-00050c-8t for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2025 12:44:06 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:470:142::17]:57584) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uZXtp-0004yx-1u for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2025 12:44:04 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uZXth-0006Q3-PU for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2025 12:43:54 -0400 Received: from woodpecker.gentoo.org ([140.211.166.183] helo=smtp.gentoo.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_CHACHA20_POLY1305:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uZXte-0002pq-Gw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2025 12:43:53 -0400 Received: from urania (p200300cbaf38e60085dba459bf4d9c6a.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:cb:af38:e600:85db:a459:bf4d:9c6a]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange secp256r1 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ulm) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2539B335D17; Wed, 09 Jul 2025 16:43:39 +0000 (UTC) From: =?utf-8?Q?Ulrich_M=C3=BCller?= To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 30.1; Strange reference to "Emacs 10.31" in fileio.c Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 18:43:36 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=140.211.166.183; envelope-from=ulm@gentoo.org; helo=smtp.gentoo.org X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/) Fexpand_file_name has another copy below it in an #if 0 ... #endif block, with the following comment: /* PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS COMMENTED-OUT VERSION! This is the old version of expand-file-name, before it was thoroughly rewritten for Emacs 10.31. We leave this version here commented-out, because the code is very complex and likely to have subtle bugs. If bugs _are_ found, it might be of interest to look at the old code and see what did it do in the relevant situation. Don't remove this code: it's true that it will be accessible from the repository, but a few years from deletion, people will forget it is there. */ Maybe I am missing something, but I believe there never was an Emacs 10.31. Version numbers went from 1.1 to 1.12; then the first component was dropped and versions continued from 13. So I looked into the history: The commented-out code existed already in version 19.7 (but not in 18.59). It was then removed on 2001-10-22 and restored on 2001-10-25 in commit 4887597a1c52 by Eli, who also added the above comment. tl;dr Could the version reference be changed to "Emacs 19"? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Jul 09 13:41:57 2025 Received: (at 78983) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Jul 2025 17:41:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52245 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uZYns-0005Z1-IL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2025 13:41:57 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43470) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uZYnq-0005XX-4f for 78983@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2025 13:41:55 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uZYnk-00010l-5B; Wed, 09 Jul 2025 13:41:48 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=8YvHXez4W0dTaCWNU+4gfbtICCaJ151x5uvtT23wmq4=; b=AdZo7CI8CmRLiY+aK7hm qmYpjCb3Tzr/lcIw1Lri1q/fie8fae7pkBh3O17QHjJn599B6VOodJdBnxQotAiZFYLSHt4SzjYhC 5znUKbAMWgmVzYQoK5WXY92XEUjGHz4q/jTNm7ZrNLf9zLU0icpm5iuYqpM0XlEL1W/zXLnBZIKtt 3iqU8TnNBFJjqoFkyEw+oyNnTgudfj4XhHmUVBVkS39+H/2WZpOL54KzAAAuhEH6mkTFXTW8YWsL5 8yhD6tvIZhP0Fve2xrDCEBlskvOgtJfHxqcSWxBOFCctXuS5awM9p4ps5iJfqijFeq2nOKlclYYqc kqs0hzAxrkEqtg==; Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 20:41:45 +0300 Message-Id: <86a55di7mu.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Ulrich =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=FCller?= In-Reply-To: (message from Ulrich =?iso-8859-1?Q?M?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?=FCller?= on Wed, 09 Jul 2025 18:43:36 +0200) Subject: Re: bug#78983: 30.1; Strange reference to "Emacs 10.31" in fileio.c References: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 78983 Cc: 78983@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Ulrich Müller > Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 18:43:36 +0200 > > Fexpand_file_name has another copy below it in an #if 0 ... #endif > block, with the following comment: > > /* PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS COMMENTED-OUT VERSION! > This is the old version of expand-file-name, before it was thoroughly > rewritten for Emacs 10.31. We leave this version here commented-out, > because the code is very complex and likely to have subtle bugs. If > bugs _are_ found, it might be of interest to look at the old code and > see what did it do in the relevant situation. > > Don't remove this code: it's true that it will be accessible > from the repository, but a few years from deletion, people will > forget it is there. */ > > Maybe I am missing something, but I believe there never was an > Emacs 10.31. Version numbers went from 1.1 to 1.12; then the first > component was dropped and versions continued from 13. > > So I looked into the history: The commented-out code existed already > in version 19.7 (but not in 18.59). It was then removed on 2001-10-22 > and restored on 2001-10-25 in commit 4887597a1c52 by Eli, who also > added the above comment. > > tl;dr Could the version reference be changed to "Emacs 19"? Why is the version important? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Jul 09 14:44:33 2025 Received: (at 78983) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Jul 2025 18:44:33 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52419 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uZZmS-0008Gc-JD for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2025 14:44:33 -0400 Received: from dev.gentoo.org ([2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]:51441 helo=smtp.gentoo.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uZZmO-0008El-TC for 78983@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2025 14:44:30 -0400 Received: from urania (p200300cbaf38e60085dba459bf4d9c6a.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:cb:af38:e600:85db:a459:bf4d:9c6a]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange secp256r1 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ulm) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B16D834215D; Wed, 09 Jul 2025 18:44:21 +0000 (UTC) From: =?utf-8?Q?Ulrich_M=C3=BCller?= To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#78983: 30.1; Strange reference to "Emacs 10.31" in fileio.c In-Reply-To: <86a55di7mu.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 09 Jul 2025 20:41:45 +0300") References: <86a55di7mu.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 20:44:18 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 78983 Cc: Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?M=C3=BCller?= , 78983@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) >>>>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2025, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> tl;dr Could the version reference be changed to "Emacs 19"? > Why is the version important? Apparently it was important enough to mention it, in the first place? And if that information is there then it should be accurate. Also, it confuses people, including one of the Emacs maintainers: https://debbugs.gnu.org/72132 https://emacshorrors.com/posts/forget-me-not.html https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/2kwbw9/comment/clqcagc/ From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jul 10 01:41:52 2025 Received: (at 78983) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jul 2025 05:41:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54547 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uZk2Z-0004uq-C1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2025 01:41:52 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56706) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uZk2W-0004th-IQ for 78983@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2025 01:41:49 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uZk2Q-0000ug-Hj; Thu, 10 Jul 2025 01:41:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=D7+Bh0n2zAU2U+cJo/Saxe/uxBA2bibi9GEnXsRPasQ=; b=JziKWMQ9/WaPPincuZYd EzK3AdZSPdVyJJ1Co8pAsQzSGXJHWV7lRUvXFGQCTMao87kDojlOesWnIzqUlyGaM7QhXYCeLDPJ1 NHioyz8rqHopdkIveo2TZz6spLb8gzzBqodO9TutEBLcxCivYdI2SiYKT1kWxc69ZZegLVurRFiL4 Ii8peFCKrDgHvaF2IlBz2fWYleFbfBOigHIqRUuWkroAVwuthF3UNit8osBJPWxfikM9VnGTjLIp6 b8qEphvOH211uFFI09vxw4Q85//ckGdXFacIhTe47ut49z1xR1BZiWLuwRP7jKekbcFxb2o40Sl+A SpTaMUZMCRd1gg==; Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 08:41:40 +0300 Message-Id: <8634b4iovf.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Ulrich =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=FCller?= In-Reply-To: (message from Ulrich =?iso-8859-1?Q?M?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?=FCller?= on Wed, 09 Jul 2025 20:44:18 +0200) Subject: Re: bug#78983: 30.1; Strange reference to "Emacs 10.31" in fileio.c References: <86a55di7mu.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 78983 Cc: 78983@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Ulrich Müller > Cc: Ulrich Müller , 78983@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 20:44:18 +0200 > > >>>>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2025, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > >> tl;dr Could the version reference be changed to "Emacs 19"? > > > Why is the version important? > > Apparently it was important enough to mention it, in the first place? > And if that information is there then it should be accurate. > > Also, it confuses people, including one of the Emacs maintainers: > > https://debbugs.gnu.org/72132 > https://emacshorrors.com/posts/forget-me-not.html > https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/2kwbw9/comment/clqcagc/ I don't see any confusion, FWIW. I see a good-faith question (unrelated to the version), which got answered. Anyway, I don't think 10.31 is a mistake. I think I asked Richard back then. In particular, the initial commit of fileio.c into CVS, from Apr 10, 1991 (which is _before_ the time stamp of fileio.c in Emacs 18.59) already has this #ifdef'ed-away version, even though Emacs 18.59's version of fileio.c does not. So there's more here than meets the eye. I can suggest to remove the version from the text, if this nit is really deemed important. But I think we are splitting hair here. I have just spent half an hour looking up old versions of fileio.c -- was that really worth it? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jul 10 06:38:34 2025 Received: (at 78983) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jul 2025 10:38:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56018 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uZofh-0000mS-LR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2025 06:38:34 -0400 Received: from woodpecker.gentoo.org ([2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]:54949 helo=smtp.gentoo.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uZofd-0000kL-VY for 78983@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2025 06:38:31 -0400 Received: from urania (unknown [IPv6:2001:4c80:40:539:b877:565f:7e2f:2761]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange secp256r1 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ulm) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6C7834215D; Thu, 10 Jul 2025 10:38:20 +0000 (UTC) From: =?utf-8?Q?Ulrich_M=C3=BCller?= To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#78983: 30.1; Strange reference to "Emacs 10.31" in fileio.c In-Reply-To: <8634b4iovf.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 10 Jul 2025 08:41:40 +0300") References: <86a55di7mu.fsf@gnu.org> <8634b4iovf.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 12:38:16 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 78983 Cc: Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?M=C3=BCller?= , 78983@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) >>>>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2025, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Anyway, I don't think 10.31 is a mistake. I think I asked Richard > back then. In particular, the initial commit of fileio.c into CVS, > from Apr 10, 1991 (which is _before_ the time stamp of fileio.c in > Emacs 18.59) already has this #ifdef'ed-away version, even though > Emacs 18.59's version of fileio.c does not. So there's more here than > meets the eye. I've now compared the #if-0-ed code from the initial version in git (commit 570d76241f16 from 1991-04-10) to the code in Emacs 18.52, 18.55, and 18.57. While none is a perfect match, 18.55 is close. Going back further in time (I've looked at 18.41 and 16.56), the differences become larger. A telltale sign are also the "#ifdef VMS" code blocks (in the initial git commit; they were removed later). VMS support was added in Emacs 18, so these code blocks wouldn't be present in any earlier version. So I still doubt that "version 10.31" theory. > I can suggest to remove the version from the text, if this nit is > really deemed important. But I think we are splitting hair here. > I have just spent half an hour looking up old versions of fileio.c -- > was that really worth it? Sorry about that. Feel free to close this bug then. (I thought it was a no-brainer but apparently it is more complicated.) From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jul 10 09:19:16 2025 Received: (at 78983-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jul 2025 13:19:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56452 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uZrBD-0005yy-KQ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2025 09:19:16 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42268) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uZrBA-0005xt-OV for 78983-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2025 09:19:13 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uZrB4-0006KB-1w; Thu, 10 Jul 2025 09:19:06 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=onrLEZpUl2pliZ2yYa+h/aUwDSU9oHqaLx/6nxohkI8=; b=rsuaW0cGbTaObd6gALSl Y+8/cJo0Zdsvqdx6l1M+QQOk+AwjDZAuS28oZbCqatqesqkqVUHNhMmcyC4q+VoyUrinNuilUOwtr cXgSGvnVgziur7xVITtEW7vAOaGkBK9VkPxSiLXraC4EgH7Et+6rAVP76VyJn3HCrhbizo3sbdfhc bOUj68nWYLfIKWqqIdnpl8Lw061NMtO94kdWnZ2Of+lUubSRsP99FRzabUiS4ElbznJz9GVZTejAd XAzR67hJXPaFjesiQDCzyIe86YK8pQgJcuRp5Nq3MH6gVw1o91loDTII6hvP1LPXqQ1tEN7pcNZly AMjieqkU12Uoqg==; Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 16:19:01 +0300 Message-Id: <86ple8gp4q.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Ulrich =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=FCller?= In-Reply-To: (message from Ulrich =?iso-8859-1?Q?M?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?=FCller?= on Thu, 10 Jul 2025 12:38:16 +0200) Subject: Re: bug#78983: 30.1; Strange reference to "Emacs 10.31" in fileio.c References: <86a55di7mu.fsf@gnu.org> <8634b4iovf.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 78983-done Cc: 78983-done@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > From: Ulrich Müller > Cc: Ulrich Müller , 78983@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 12:38:16 +0200 > > >>>>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2025, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Anyway, I don't think 10.31 is a mistake. I think I asked Richard > > back then. In particular, the initial commit of fileio.c into CVS, > > from Apr 10, 1991 (which is _before_ the time stamp of fileio.c in > > Emacs 18.59) already has this #ifdef'ed-away version, even though > > Emacs 18.59's version of fileio.c does not. So there's more here than > > meets the eye. > > I've now compared the #if-0-ed code from the initial version in git > (commit 570d76241f16 from 1991-04-10) to the code in Emacs 18.52, > 18.55, and 18.57. While none is a perfect match, 18.55 is close. > Going back further in time (I've looked at 18.41 and 16.56), the > differences become larger. > > A telltale sign are also the "#ifdef VMS" code blocks (in the initial > git commit; they were removed later). VMS support was added in Emacs 18, > so these code blocks wouldn't be present in any earlier version. > > So I still doubt that "version 10.31" theory. I cannot remember why I wrote that, and couldn't find anything in my email archives from back then to help me. But it isn't a simple typo, since neither 19.31 nor 18.31 nor 1.31 (if interpreted as the CVS version of fileio.c) fit the bill (I checked them all). > > I can suggest to remove the version from the text, if this nit is > > really deemed important. But I think we are splitting hair here. > > I have just spent half an hour looking up old versions of fileio.c -- > > was that really worth it? > > Sorry about that. Feel free to close this bug then. Done, after removing the offending version number from that comment. > (I thought it was a no-brainer but apparently it is more > complicated.) Not sure what you expected -- that when pointed to my commit I will not try to understand why I wrote that, and just agree with you on the spot that I made such a strange mistake by typing a non-trivial wrong version number? Is that what you would do in such a situation? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jul 10 12:01:19 2025 Received: (at 78983-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jul 2025 16:01:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58717 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uZti3-0003e1-Bt for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2025 12:01:19 -0400 Received: from woodpecker.gentoo.org ([140.211.166.183]:47998 helo=smtp.gentoo.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uZti1-0003cd-BD for 78983-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2025 12:01:18 -0400 Received: from urania (p200300cbaf4c0e005d7302399b19ff12.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:cb:af4c:e00:5d73:239:9b19:ff12]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange secp256r1 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ulm) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4957E341FC2; Thu, 10 Jul 2025 16:01:09 +0000 (UTC) From: =?utf-8?Q?Ulrich_M=C3=BCller?= To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#78983: 30.1; Strange reference to "Emacs 10.31" in fileio.c In-Reply-To: <86ple8gp4q.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 10 Jul 2025 16:19:01 +0300") References: <86a55di7mu.fsf@gnu.org> <8634b4iovf.fsf@gnu.org> <86ple8gp4q.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 18:01:05 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 78983-done Cc: Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?M=C3=BCller?= , 78983-done@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) >>>>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2025, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > I cannot remember why I wrote that, and couldn't find anything in my > email archives from back then to help me. But it isn't a simple typo, > since neither 19.31 nor 18.31 nor 1.31 (if interpreted as the CVS > version of fileio.c) fit the bill (I checked them all). So it's a mystery. Not many clues from the ChangeLog either; there are only two entries for Fexpand_file_name between the 18.52 release and the initial version in git: | 1989-04-06 Richard Stallman (rms@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu) | | * fileio.c (Fexpand_file_name): Don't simplify /../ at start of name. This change made it into the 18.55 release (which contains only one version of the function, namely the one that is now #if-ed out). | 1990-06-01 Joseph Arceneaux (jla@churchy.ai.mit.edu) | | * fileio.c (Fexpand_file_name): Simplified. This could be anything. :/ > Done, after removing the offending version number from that comment. Thank you. > Not sure what you expected -- that when pointed to my commit I will > not try to understand why I wrote that, and just agree with you on the > spot that I made such a strange mistake by typing a non-trivial wrong > version number? Is that what you would do in such a situation? Indeed it doesn't look like a simple typo. From unknown Fri Sep 12 19:58:02 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2025 11:24:08 +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