GNU bug report logs - #78983
30.1; Strange reference to "Emacs 10.31" in fileio.c

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#78983: closed (30.1; Strange reference to "Emacs 10.31" in
 fileio.c)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 13:20:03 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Thu, 10 Jul 2025 16:19:01 +0300
with message-id <86ple8gp4q.fsf <at> gnu.org>
and subject line Re: bug#78983: 30.1; Strange reference to "Emacs 10.31" in fileio.c
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #78983,
regarding 30.1; Strange reference to "Emacs 10.31" in fileio.c
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
78983: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=78983
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Ulrich Müller <ulm <at> gentoo.org>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 30.1; Strange reference to "Emacs 10.31" in fileio.c
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"?

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Ulrich Müller <ulm <at> gentoo.org>
Cc: 78983-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#78983: 30.1; Strange reference to "Emacs 10.31" in fileio.c
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 16:19:01 +0300

> From: Ulrich Müller <ulm <at> gentoo.org>
> Cc: Ulrich Müller <ulm <at> gentoo.org>,  78983 <at> 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?

Previous Next

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