From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Feb 25 16:25:01 2011 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Feb 2011 21:25:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pt59p-00042G-Lw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:25:01 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pt59o-000425-NL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:25:01 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pt59e-0000ve-Um for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:24:55 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]:56532) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pt59e-0000va-Sj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:24:50 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46622 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pt59a-0001ex-43 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:24:50 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pt59U-0000uw-0N for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:24:45 -0500 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:21860) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pt59T-0000uh-NY for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:24:39 -0500 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id p1PLOber006829 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 21:24:38 GMT Received: from acsmt355.oracle.com (acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id p1PGkQxS015396 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 21:24:36 GMT Received: from abhmt004.oracle.com by acsmt355.oracle.com with ESMTP id 1039161071298669064; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:24:24 -0800 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.35.130) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:24:24 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: Subject: 24.0.50; `mark-active' needs its doc string Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:24:26 -0800 Message-ID: <80D7750819194368B9899655D0AB5C9B@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 Thread-Index: AcvVMmEO63+BlLRaSiKLZ5A1kVyEuw== X-Source-IP: acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090206.4D681E14.0122:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 199.232.76.165 X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) Emacs prior to 24, since Day One: "Non-nil means the mark and region are currently active in this buffer." Emacs 24: "Not documented as a variable." Bad Emacs. In GNU Emacs 24.0.50.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600) of 2011-02-14 on 3249CTO Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600 configured using `configure --with-gcc (4.4) --no-opt --cflags -Ic:/imagesupport/include' From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Feb 25 17:38:39 2011 Received: (at 8119) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Feb 2011 22:38:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pt6J5-0007FQ-Ha for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:38:39 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pt6J3-0007FA-Js; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:38:37 -0500 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54476) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pt6Iy-00055s-Aj; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:38:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19816.12136.85156.254849@fencepost.gnu.org> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:38:32 -0500 From: Glenn Morris To: 8119@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#8119: 24.0.50; `mark-active' needs its doc string In-Reply-To: <80D7750819194368B9899655D0AB5C9B@us.oracle.com> References: <80D7750819194368B9899655D0AB5C9B@us.oracle.com> X-Attribution: GM X-Mailer: VM (www.wonderworks.com/vm), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs) X-Hue: yellow X-Ran: w2K%n`33T6I&!2G7.3qPt=^M1_mZ6tI{T0H)qFucV`+3)|4)+1wo_=+]E&Zo@5g=UFf9M| X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8119 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) retitle 8119 buggy 2011-02-14 trunk build on MS Windows stop > Emacs 24: > "Not documented as a variable." s/Emacs 24/current trunk/ Anyway, buggy build. Current trunk on GNU/Linux: mark-active is a variable defined in `C source code'. Its value is nil Local in buffer *scratch*; global value is nil Automatically becomes buffer-local when set in any fashion. Documentation: Non-nil means the mark and region are currently active in this buffer. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Feb 25 19:12:09 2011 Received: (at 8119) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Feb 2011 00:12:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pt7lZ-0001cy-J5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 19:12:09 -0500 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pt7lX-0001ca-AS for 8119@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 19:12:07 -0500 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id p1Q0Bw4C027520 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 26 Feb 2011 00:12:01 GMT Received: from acsmt355.oracle.com (acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id p1PGkQH5015400; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 00:11:57 GMT Received: from abhmt007.oracle.com by acsmt354.oracle.com with ESMTP id 1039626591298679030; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:10:30 -0800 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.35.130) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:10:30 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Glenn Morris'" , <8119@debbugs.gnu.org> References: <80D7750819194368B9899655D0AB5C9B@us.oracle.com> <19816.12136.85156.254849@fencepost.gnu.org> Subject: RE: bug#8119: 24.0.50; `mark-active' needs its doc string Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:10:33 -0800 Message-ID: <56705938E5E64BB9880882471D813B12@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <19816.12136.85156.254849@fencepost.gnu.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 Thread-Index: AcvVSB4gHedEsXfNRUuLW10DSLzYlwAAD8jw X-Source-IP: acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090203.4D68454D.00CF:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8119 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) > From: Glenn Morris Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:39 PM > retitle 8119 buggy 2011-02-14 trunk build on MS Windows > stop > > > Emacs 24: > > "Not documented as a variable." > > s/Emacs 24/current trunk/ OK. > Anyway, buggy build. OK. > Current trunk on GNU/Linux: > mark-active is a variable defined in `C source code'. > Its value is nil > Local in buffer *scratch*; global value is nil > Automatically becomes buffer-local when set in any fashion. > Documentation: > Non-nil means the mark and region are currently active in > this buffer. (You've written "current trunk" in two contradictory ways, BTW. Which is it - not documented or documented?) If this is a buggy build, then file a bug report saying to that effect. Or add that statement to this bug's description (body): "Anyway...". No problem. But please do not change the title of this bug. Even if you are convinced that the _cause_ of the symptom I reported is a buggy build, the bug-report title should not be changed. If you want, create a new bug with your "buggy" title, to refer to a problem that you discovered. And then, if you are convinced that this bug is related to the other, merge the two. That way, if the merge is mistaken the two can be dissociated. And their descriptions/titles anyway remain distinct. There is no reason to retitle a bug report. The original title is the OP's way of describing the problem. It need not be a description of the underlying cause of the problem. It need not even be accurate/correct. There is never any reason to simply wipe out that original description, replacing it with one you think is closer to the mark. This is not the way bugs are handled - in any bug tracking system I've seen. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Feb 26 02:06:09 2011 Received: (at 8119) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Feb 2011 07:06:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtEED-00026S-0K for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:06:09 -0500 Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtEEB-000265-5A for 8119@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:06:07 -0500 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LH700200PTONH00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for 8119@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:06:01 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.53.157]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LH7002Y7QE0NY10@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:06:01 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:06:05 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#8119: 24.0.50; `mark-active' needs its doc string In-reply-to: <19816.12136.85156.254849@fencepost.gnu.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Glenn Morris Message-id: <83k4gnp95u.fsf@gnu.org> References: <80D7750819194368B9899655D0AB5C9B@us.oracle.com> <19816.12136.85156.254849@fencepost.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.1 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8119 Cc: 8119@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.1 (--) > Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:38:32 -0500 > From: Glenn Morris > Cc: > > retitle 8119 buggy 2011-02-14 trunk build on MS Windows > stop > > > Emacs 24: > > "Not documented as a variable." > > s/Emacs 24/current trunk/ > > Anyway, buggy build. > > Current trunk on GNU/Linux: > > mark-active is a variable defined in `C source code'. > Its value is nil > Local in buffer *scratch*; global value is nil > > Automatically becomes buffer-local when set in any fashion. > > Documentation: > Non-nil means the mark and region are currently active in this buffer. Confirmed, I see the same as Glenn with yesterday's build of the trunk on Windows. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Feb 26 02:14:50 2011 Received: (at 8119) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Feb 2011 07:14:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtEMc-0002I3-6x for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:14:50 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtEMa-0002Hr-LN for 8119@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:14:48 -0500 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48330) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PtEMU-0006mm-3J; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:14:42 -0500 From: Glenn Morris To: 8119@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#8119: 24.0.50; `mark-active' needs its doc string References: <80D7750819194368B9899655D0AB5C9B@us.oracle.com> <19816.12136.85156.254849@fencepost.gnu.org> <56705938E5E64BB9880882471D813B12@us.oracle.com> X-Spook: Albania ammunition Bellcore Semtex dictionary Ceridian X-Ran: t1i].oxyXQQ?>D5x?AN_m:pY`*8+"i9Am`axp8G.{:^jrv9czDd/P:8!]J^}i]/*fgj#=5 X-Hue: yellow X-Debbugs-No-Ack: yes X-Attribution: GM Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:14:41 -0500 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8119 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.3 (------) "Drew Adams" wrote: > If this is a buggy build, then file a bug report saying to that > effect. Or add that statement to this bug's description (body): > "Anyway...". No problem. > > But please do not change the title of this bug. Even if you are > convinced that the _cause_ of the symptom I reported is a buggy build, > the bug-report title should not be changed. > > If you want, create a new bug with your "buggy" title, to refer to a > problem that you discovered. And then, if you are convinced that this > bug is related to the other, merge the two. That way, if the merge is > mistaken the two can be dissociated. And their descriptions/titles > anyway remain distinct. > > There is no reason to retitle a bug report. The original title is the > OP's way of describing the problem. It need not be a description of > the underlying cause of the problem. It need not even be > accurate/correct. There is never any reason to simply wipe out that > original description, replacing it with one you think is closer to the > mark. > > This is not the way bugs are handled - in any bug tracking system I've seen. Well. That certainly is an opinion. I disagree. IMO the title is a brief phrase that best summarizes what the real issue is. This is for the convenience of developers in locating bugs to work on, and for other users in locating reports related to problems they may be having. The original title is not always the best summary of the real problem, which is why the retitle command exists. But rest assured I won't interfere with any more of your reports, at all. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Feb 26 03:19:09 2011 Received: (at 8119-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Feb 2011 08:19:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtFMr-0004TA-3s for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 03:19:09 -0500 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.9]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtFMp-0004So-HU for 8119-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 03:19:08 -0500 Received: from frontend1.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.180]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A3A41C01F00; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:19:01 +0100 (CET) X-Auth-Info: epsGVAjnz0gHZpDNlGvRfT70Oqp2zHHRHtcABDG/rtw= Received: from linux.local (ppp-93-104-40-199.dynamic.mnet-online.de [93.104.40.199]) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 444AE1C0013F; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:19:01 +0100 (CET) Received: by linux.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id A36C314E762; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:19:08 +0100 (CET) From: Andreas Schwab To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#8119: 24.0.50; `mark-active' needs its doc string References: <80D7750819194368B9899655D0AB5C9B@us.oracle.com> X-Yow: .. this must be what it's like to be a COLLEGE GRADUATE!! Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:19:08 +0100 In-Reply-To: <80D7750819194368B9899655D0AB5C9B@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:24:26 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2.94 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8119-done Cc: 8119-done@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) Fixed here: 2011-02-21 Ben Key (tiny change) * make-docfile.c (scan_c_file): Adapt DEFVAR_PER_BUFFER case to the new BVAR macro. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Feb 26 09:20:54 2011 Received: (at 8119) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Feb 2011 14:20:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtL0w-0004n5-6p for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:20:54 -0500 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtL0t-0004mr-LK for 8119@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:20:52 -0500 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id p1QEKhlb004985 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 26 Feb 2011 14:20:45 GMT Received: from acsmt355.oracle.com (acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id p1QBaRo4028446; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 14:20:43 GMT Received: from abhmt020.oracle.com by acsmt353.oracle.com with ESMTP id 1040361941298729932; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 06:18:52 -0800 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.58.64) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 06:18:51 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Glenn Morris'" , <8119@debbugs.gnu.org> References: <80D7750819194368B9899655D0AB5C9B@us.oracle.com><19816.12136.85156.254849@fencepost.gnu.org><56705938E5E64BB9880882471D813B12@us.oracle.com> Subject: RE: bug#8119: 24.0.50; `mark-active' needs its doc string Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 06:18:55 -0800 Message-ID: <43C9C32D8540491CBBB509D57B314DB4@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 Thread-Index: AcvVh/W4V+aw4W7aSvuWYMe0mdQeJgAM2wIQ X-Source-IP: acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090209.4D690C3B.00C2:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8119 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) > > This is not the way bugs are handled - in any bug tracking > > system I've seen. > > Well. That certainly is an opinion. I disagree. OK, two opinions. Do you know of a company where bug reports are retitled by developers along the way, based on their current understanding of the underlying problem? Or are ever retitled, by developers or by anyone else? I don't. I cannot imagine how a customer would look upon such a practice (wrt customer-facing bugs). Admittedly, the real identifier is the bug number. And there is metadata for categorizing bugs, which also helps to identify them. But customers and others often search or sort using titles and terms in titles. User bug reports are often expressed (including titled) in user terms, whereas the root problem is often expressed in internal, implementation terms. In my experience, the improved understanding that developers add to a bug report gets added to the body (thread) or by recategorizing (metadata, merging etc.). It does not happen in general by retitling. What I see is that both the bug number and the title remain as unchanged identifiers. People might later refer to a different bug number because of a merge, but the original number is not changed - and similarly for titles. So yes, my reply represents an opinion, but one that reflects pretty widespread practice AFAICT. > IMO the title is a brief phrase that best summarizes what the > real issue is. This is for the convenience of developers in > locating bugs to work on, and for other users in locating reports > related to problems they may be having. The original title is not > always the best summary of the real problem, which is why the > retitle command exists. The original title is not always the best summary of the real problem - agreed 100%. But that's not the role of the title. The title summarizes the OP's view of the problem as originally reported - for better or worse. And later retitlings are not necessarily the best summary of the real problem either. > But rest assured I won't interfere with any more of your > reports, at all. Do what you feel you need to do, Glenn, but it's not about you, or me. My reply was an attempt to improve the process - just as yours was, no doubt. As you said, we have different opinions; that's all. I think retitling for such a case hurts more than helps; you don't agree. That's not a reason to sulk or go off in a huff. I appreciate your hard work, as does everyone else. My point was only about retitling - and it was not only about bugs that I report. It certainly was not personal. No one is asking that you take your marbles and go home. I hope you will reconsider about helping on bugs I submit, whether or not you reconsider wrt retitling bugs. Think of my argument as a question, if you like: What is the policy wrt retitling? I gave an argument against it (in general) - I think it gets in the way more than it helps. Your reply gives an argument in support of it. But what is the policy? When is it considered appropriate to use the `retitle' command? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Feb 26 10:08:59 2011 Received: (at 8119) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Feb 2011 15:08:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtLlS-0005xl-Pu for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:08:58 -0500 Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtLlQ-0005xZ-SH for 8119@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:08:57 -0500 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LH800700CMWT600@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for 8119@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 17:08:50 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.53.157]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LH80057KCQPTVP0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 17:08:50 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 17:08:55 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#8119: 24.0.50; `mark-active' needs its doc string In-reply-to: <43C9C32D8540491CBBB509D57B314DB4@us.oracle.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Drew Adams Message-id: <837hcmq1dk.fsf@gnu.org> References: <80D7750819194368B9899655D0AB5C9B@us.oracle.com> <19816.12136.85156.254849@fencepost.gnu.org> <56705938E5E64BB9880882471D813B12@us.oracle.com> <43C9C32D8540491CBBB509D57B314DB4@us.oracle.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.1 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8119 Cc: rgm@gnu.org, 8119@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.1 (--) > From: "Drew Adams" > Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 06:18:55 -0800 > Cc: > > > But rest assured I won't interfere with any more of your > > reports, at all. > > Think of my argument as a question, if you like: What is the policy wrt > retitling? I think Glenn's arguments are entirely valid. If there needs to be policy, Glenn is the first one we should ask, because he does most of the mundane work with the bug-tracker. FWIW, I see no harm at all in retitling, and I do see a certain value in having the title express the essence of the bug report. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Feb 26 10:28:29 2011 Received: (at 8119) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Feb 2011 15:28:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtM4K-0006PL-3L for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:28:28 -0500 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtM4G-0006Op-S4 for 8119@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:28:25 -0500 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id p1QFSGl3004179 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 26 Feb 2011 15:28:18 GMT Received: from acsmt354.oracle.com (acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id p1QF1vEm031245; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 15:28:16 GMT Received: from abhmt001.oracle.com by acsmt355.oracle.com with ESMTP id 1089470681298734036; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 07:27:16 -0800 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.48.161) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 07:27:16 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" References: <80D7750819194368B9899655D0AB5C9B@us.oracle.com> <19816.12136.85156.254849@fencepost.gnu.org> <56705938E5E64BB9880882471D813B12@us.oracle.com> <43C9C32D8540491CBBB509D57B314DB4@us.oracle.com> <837hcmq1dk.fsf@gnu.org> Subject: RE: bug#8119: 24.0.50; `mark-active' needs its doc string Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 07:27:20 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <837hcmq1dk.fsf@gnu.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 Thread-Index: AcvVxxUinlaAeedlSY6Wu5hY6km9BAAASMUQ X-Source-IP: acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090205.4D691C10.00CF:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8119 Cc: rgm@gnu.org, 8119@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) > > Think of my argument as a question, if you like: > > What is the policy wrt retitling? > > I think Glenn's arguments are entirely valid. No one suggested otherwise. > If there needs to be policy, Glenn is the first one we > should ask, because he does most of the mundane work with > the bug-tracker. Fine. But bug tracking is for users as well as developers. Please keep that in mind when setting the policy. It is not only about who does the bug-tracking mundane work. Or at least it should not be (IMHO). > FWIW, I see no harm at all in retitling, and I do see a certain > value in having the title express the essence of the bug report. And do you see such a policy as the general practice elsewhere? What others do elsewhere need not limit or guide us, but it can sometimes help to look over the fence. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Feb 26 10:40:11 2011 Received: (at 8119) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Feb 2011 15:40:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtMFf-0006h5-J2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:40:11 -0500 Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtMFd-0006gt-VK for 8119@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:40:10 -0500 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LH800500E2MQJ00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for 8119@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 17:40:04 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.53.157]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LH80053HE6P91D0@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 17:40:02 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 17:40:07 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#8119: 24.0.50; `mark-active' needs its doc string In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Drew Adams Message-id: <834o7qpzxk.fsf@gnu.org> References: <80D7750819194368B9899655D0AB5C9B@us.oracle.com> <19816.12136.85156.254849@fencepost.gnu.org> <56705938E5E64BB9880882471D813B12@us.oracle.com> <43C9C32D8540491CBBB509D57B314DB4@us.oracle.com> <837hcmq1dk.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8119 Cc: rgm@gnu.org, 8119@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) > From: "Drew Adams" > Cc: , <8119@debbugs.gnu.org> > Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 07:27:20 -0800 > > > FWIW, I see no harm at all in retitling, and I do see a certain > > value in having the title express the essence of the bug report. > > And do you see such a policy as the general practice elsewhere? On my daytime job, I frequently retitle bug reports, because many of my co-workers don't know how to express themselves in English too well. I have yet to see anyone complain about that; all of the correspondence about bugs quotes their numbers anyway. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Feb 26 11:00:51 2011 Received: (at 8119) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Feb 2011 16:00:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtMZf-00079j-7j for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:00:51 -0500 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtMZc-00079V-Ma for 8119@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:00:49 -0500 Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com (rcsinet15.oracle.com [148.87.113.117]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id p1QG0f6h003127 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:00:42 GMT Received: from acsmt353.oracle.com (acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id p1QFI82K020798; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:00:40 GMT Received: from abhmt013.oracle.com by acsmt353.oracle.com with ESMTP id 1089492431298736037; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 08:00:37 -0800 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.48.161) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 08:00:37 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" References: <80D7750819194368B9899655D0AB5C9B@us.oracle.com> <19816.12136.85156.254849@fencepost.gnu.org> <56705938E5E64BB9880882471D813B12@us.oracle.com> <43C9C32D8540491CBBB509D57B314DB4@us.oracle.com> <837hcmq1dk.fsf@gnu.org> <834o7qpzxk.fsf@gnu.org> Subject: RE: bug#8119: 24.0.50; `mark-active' needs its doc string Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 08:00:41 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <834o7qpzxk.fsf@gnu.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 Thread-Index: AcvVy3GH3ci8vVbsROORfhSWGLbUnAAAEX5w X-Source-IP: acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090207.4D6923A9.00A5:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 8119 Cc: rgm@gnu.org, 8119@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) > > > FWIW, I see no harm at all in retitling, and I do see a certain > > > value in having the title express the essence of the bug report. > > > > And do you see such a policy as the general practice elsewhere? > > On my daytime job, I frequently retitle bug reports, because many of > my co-workers don't know how to express themselves in English too > well. OK, good to know. FWIW, my experience has been the opposite; bugs are not retitled. They often get clarified, corrected, reclassified, and merged, but not retitled AFAICT. It thus happens that one sees some bug titles that bear little apparent relation to the ultimate diagnosis (not to mention diagnoses along the way). The titles remain as originally posted, whether posted internally or by a customer. > I have yet to see anyone complain about that; all of the > correspondence about bugs quotes their numbers anyway. Yes, as I said, the bug number is the primary and unique identifier, and as such it nearly always appears in correspondence. But as Glen pointed out, titles can be used for searching, and replacing a user name of a problem by a developer name for it doesn't necessarily help users search for it. It might help some users, but it might well disadvantage others, including the OP. From unknown Wed Aug 20 03:37:45 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 11:24:04 +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