From unknown Fri Aug 15 16:24:39 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#9831: 24.0.90; o and c-o in RMAIL change buffer Resent-From: john ffitch Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:11:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: report 9831 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 9831@debbugs.gnu.org X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.131928185910230 (code B ref -1); Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:11:01 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Oct 2011 11:10:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RHZTe-0002ew-Uu for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:10:59 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RHZTb-0002ej-6e for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:10:57 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RHZSD-0001o6-77 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:09:30 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]:48667) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RHZSD-0001o1-3C for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:09:29 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:59169) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RHZSB-0008Bv-OS for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:09:28 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RHZSA-0001nl-B7 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:09:27 -0400 Received: from smarthost03.mail.zen.net.uk ([212.23.3.142]:44196) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RHZS9-0001d5-US for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:09:26 -0400 Received: from [217.155.197.248] (helo=codemist.co.uk) by smarthost03.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1RHZRg-0008AI-5Z for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:08:56 +0000 Received: from harvey.codemist.co.uk ([172.16.4.19]) by codemist.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RHZRf-0007jb-E0; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:08:55 +0100 Received: from jpff by harvey.codemist.co.uk with local (Exim 4.74) (envelope-from ) id 1RHZRZ-0000lP-K2; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:08:49 +0100 Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:08:49 +0100 Message-Id: <9452-Sat22Oct2011120849+0100-jpff@codemist.co.uk> X-Mailer: emacs 24.0.90.7 (via feedmail 11-beta-1 I) From: john ffitch X-Originating-Smarthost03-IP: [217.155.197.248] 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, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.17 X-Spam-Score: -5.3 (-----) 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: -5.4 (-----) When reading mail o writes the message to another file, or buffer if it is loaded. It also changes to that buffer and this seriously interferes with work flow, as it is inconsistent with when the file is not in a buffer. This seems fairly recent behaviour and is causing significant problems. Could it stay in the originating buffer, or have an option so to do? In GNU Emacs 24.0.90.7 (x86_64-suse-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.22.1) of 2011-10-20 on harvey Windowing system distributor `The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.10903000 Important settings: value of $LC_ALL: nil value of $LC_COLLATE: nil value of $LC_CTYPE: nil value of $LC_MESSAGES: nil value of $LC_MONETARY: nil value of $LC_NUMERIC: nil value of $LC_TIME: nil value of $LANG: en_GB.UTF-8 value of $XMODIFIERS: @im=local locale-coding-system: utf-8-unix default enable-multibyte-characters: t Major mode: Emacs-Lisp Minor modes in effect: erc-list-mode: t erc-menu-mode: t erc-autojoin-mode: t erc-ring-mode: t erc-networks-mode: t erc-pcomplete-mode: t erc-track-mode: t erc-track-minor-mode: t erc-match-mode: t erc-button-mode: t erc-fill-mode: t erc-stamp-mode: t erc-netsplit-mode: t erc-irccontrols-mode: t erc-noncommands-mode: t erc-move-to-prompt-mode: t erc-readonly-mode: t eldoc-mode: t auto-image-file-mode: t show-paren-mode: t display-time-mode: t tooltip-mode: t mouse-wheel-mode: t menu-bar-mode: t file-name-shadow-mode: t global-font-lock-mode: t font-lock-mode: t auto-composition-mode: t auto-encryption-mode: t auto-compression-mode: t line-number-mode: t transient-mark-mode: t Recent input: / j u o i n SPC c s o u n d C-x C-f d C-x C-f G N U _ 2 1 / e m t e / t C-h k o C-x b C-g C-x C-f ~ / R M A I L y q C-h l o C-g C-f C-g C-g C-g C-h k C-o C-h k o C-h k C-o M-x e m a c s - b r e p o r Recent messages: Invalid face reference: my-trailing-space-face Invalid face reference: my-tab-face [7 times] Invalid face reference: my-trailing-space-face Invalid face reference: my-tab-face [7 times] Invalid face reference: my-trailing-space-face Invalid face reference: my-tab-face [7 times] Invalid face reference: my-trailing-space-face Invalid face reference: my-tab-face [7 times] Invalid face reference: my-trailing-space-face Invalid face reference: my-tab-face [7 times] Load-path shadows: None found. Features: (shadow mailalias emacsbug vc-bzr find-func rmailout sendmail mime-compose mail-alias-menu mailcrypt mail-extr rmailkwd rmailmm message rfc822 mml mml-sec mm-decode mm-bodies mm-encode mailabbrev gmm-utils mailheader mail-parse rfc2231 rmail rfc2047 rfc2045 ietf-drums mail-utils network-stream auth-source eieio byte-opt bytecomp byte-compile cconv macroexp assoc gnus-util mm-util mail-prsvr password-cache starttls tls erc-menu erc-join erc-ring erc-networks erc-pcomplete pcomplete comint ring erc-track erc-match erc-button wid-edit erc-fill erc-stamp erc-netsplit erc-goodies erc erc-backend erc-compat format-spec thingatpt pp dired help-mode eldoc cal-julian image-file crypt crypt++ crypt+pgp-pub paren uniquify advice help-fns advice-preload view cal-china cal-bahai cal-islam cal-hebrew lunar solar cal-dst appt diary-lib diary-loaddefs holidays hol-loaddefs regexp-opt cal-menu easymenu calendar cal-loaddefs time time-date tooltip ediff-hook vc-hooks lisp-float-type mwheel x-win x-dnd tool-bar dnd fontset image fringe lisp-mode register page menu-bar rfn-eshadow timer select scroll-bar mouse jit-lock font-lock syntax facemenu font-core frame cham georgian utf-8-lang misc-lang vietnamese tibetan thai tai-viet lao korean japanese hebrew greek romanian slovak czech european ethiopic indian cyrillic chinese case-table epa-hook jka-cmpr-hook help simple abbrev minibuffer loaddefs button faces cus-face files text-properties overlay sha1 md5 base64 format env code-pages mule custom widget hashtable-print-readable backquote make-network-process dynamic-setting system-font-setting font-render-setting move-toolbar gtk x-toolkit x multi-tty emacs) ==John ffitch From unknown Fri Aug 15 16:24:39 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#9831: narrowing the bug down References: <9452-Sat22Oct2011120849+0100-jpff@codemist.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <9452-Sat22Oct2011120849+0100-jpff@codemist.co.uk> Resent-From: Mark Lillibridge Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 20:08:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9831 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 9831@debbugs.gnu.org Reply-To: mark.lillibridge@hp.com Received: via spool by 9831-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9831.131931406828163 (code B ref 9831); Sat, 22 Oct 2011 20:08:01 +0000 Received: (at 9831) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Oct 2011 20:07:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RHhr9-0007KB-T6 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:07:48 -0400 Received: from madara.hpl.hp.com ([192.6.19.124]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RHhr7-0007K3-4q for 9831@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:07:46 -0400 Received: from mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com (mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com [15.25.115.25]) by madara.hpl.hp.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id p9MK6Klu020006 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <9831@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:06:20 -0700 Received: from ts-rhel5 (ts-rhel5.hpl.hp.com [15.25.118.27]) by mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/HPL-PA Hub) with ESMTP id p9MK6IMb005463; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:06:18 -0700 Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:06:18 -0700 Message-Id: From: Mark Lillibridge X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 15.0.152.124 X-Spam-Score: -5.4 (-----) 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: -5.5 (-----) I have also run into this bug on Emacs 23.3. It is quite annoying. So far I have determined that the bug is caused by the following lines: rmailout.el:386: ;; FIXME should re-use existing windows. (if (rmail-summary-exists) (rmail-select-summary (rmail-update-summary))) Commenting out those two lines makes the bug go away. - Mark From unknown Fri Aug 15 16:24:39 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#9831: narrowing the bug down Resent-From: Mark Lillibridge Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 20:47:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9831 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 9831@debbugs.gnu.org Reply-To: mark.lillibridge@hp.com Received: via spool by 9831-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9831.131931639831652 (code B ref 9831); Sat, 22 Oct 2011 20:47:01 +0000 Received: (at 9831) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Oct 2011 20:46:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RHiSj-0008ER-Op for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:46:38 -0400 Received: from gundega.hpl.hp.com ([192.6.19.190]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RHiSe-0008EF-PA for 9831@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:46:34 -0400 Received: from mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com (mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com [15.25.115.25]) by gundega.hpl.hp.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id p9MKj7FL001424 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <9831@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:45:08 -0700 Received: from ts-rhel5 (ts-rhel5.hpl.hp.com [15.25.118.27]) by mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/HPL-PA Hub) with ESMTP id p9MKj51s006052; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:45:06 -0700 Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:45:05 -0700 Message-Id: From: Mark Lillibridge In-reply-to: (message from Mark Lillibridge on Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:06:18 -0700) References: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 15.0.48.190 X-Spam-Score: -3.5 (---) 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: -3.5 (---) Some further tracking reveals: The problem is in rmail-update-summary; rmail-update-summary calls (indirectly) rmail-summary in the normal unfiltered summary case: (defun rmail-update-summary (&rest ignore) (apply (car rmail-summary-redo) (cdr rmail-summary-redo))) (defun rmail-summary () "Display a summary of all messages, one line per message." (interactive) (rmail-new-summary "All" '(rmail-summary) nil) (unless (get-buffer-window rmail-buffer) (rmail-summary-beginning-of-message))) Commenting out the last two lines of the above makes the bug go away (at least for unfiltered summaries): (defun rmail-summary () "Display a summary of all messages, one line per message." (interactive) (rmail-new-summary "All" '(rmail-summary) nil) ) ; (unless (get-buffer-window rmail-buffer) ; (rmail-summary-beginning-of-message))) A bit further tracking shows that the last call is the culprit: (defun rmail-summary-beginning-of-message () "Show current message from the beginning." (interactive) (rmail-summary-show-message 'BEG)) (defun rmail-summary-show-message (where) "Show current mail message. Position it according to WHERE which can be BEG or END" (if (and (one-window-p) (not pop-up-frames)) ;; If there is just one window, put the summary on the top. (let ((buffer rmail-buffer)) (split-window (selected-window) rmail-summary-window-size) (select-window (frame-first-window)) (rmail-pop-to-buffer rmail-buffer) ;; If pop-to-buffer did not use that window, delete that ;; window. (This can happen if it uses another frame.) (or (eq buffer (window-buffer (next-window (frame-first-window)))) (delete-other-windows))) (rmail-pop-to-buffer rmail-buffer)) (cond ((eq where 'BEG) (goto-char (point-min)) (search-forward "\n\n")) ((eq where 'END) (goto-char (point-max)) (recenter (1- (window-height)))) ) (rmail-pop-to-buffer rmail-summary-buffer)) I'm not sure how to go about fixing this; extra dynamically-bound variable that stops rmail-update-summary called functions from displaying the summary in a window? - Mark From unknown Fri Aug 15 16:24:39 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#9831: cause of bug found! [PATCH] Resent-From: Mark Lillibridge Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 21:28:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9831 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 9831@debbugs.gnu.org Reply-To: mark.lillibridge@hp.com Received: via spool by 9831-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9831.13193188732769 (code B ref 9831); Sat, 22 Oct 2011 21:28:02 +0000 Received: (at 9831) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Oct 2011 21:27:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RHj6f-0000ic-7j for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 17:27:53 -0400 Received: from madara.hpl.hp.com ([192.6.19.124]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RHj6d-0000iV-GW for 9831@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 17:27:52 -0400 Received: from mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com (mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com [15.25.115.25]) by madara.hpl.hp.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id p9MLQPhX002009 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <9831@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 14:26:26 -0700 Received: from ts-rhel5 (ts-rhel5.hpl.hp.com [15.25.118.27]) by mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/HPL-PA Hub) with ESMTP id p9MLQNvQ006655; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 14:26:24 -0700 Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 14:26:23 -0700 Message-Id: From: Mark Lillibridge In-reply-to: (message from Mark Lillibridge on Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:45:05 -0700) References: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 15.0.152.124 X-Spam-Score: -5.4 (-----) 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: -5.5 (-----) Because this bug doesn't occur in Emacs 22, I compared to that code's version of rmail-summary: [Rmail 22] (defun rmail-summary () "Display a summary of all messages, one line per message." (interactive) (rmail-new-summary "All" '(rmail-summary) nil)) [Rmail 23.3] (defun rmail-summary () "Display a summary of all messages, one line per message." (interactive) (rmail-new-summary "All" '(rmail-summary) nil) (unless (get-buffer-window rmail-buffer) (rmail-summary-beginning-of-message))) As you can see, some well-meaning person added the functionality of move-to-start-of-message to the display summary command ('h') and broke rmail-output and associated functions. I checked and none of the other summary generating functions (e.g., rmail-summary-by-labels) have this functionality (added). On the assumption that somebody wanted this functionality, here is one way to patch things: ts-rhel5 [159]% ( setenv LC_ALL C ; setenv TZ UTC0 ; diff -Naur original-rmailsum.el rmailsum.el ) --- original-rmailsum.el 2011-10-22 21:03:14.834090000 +0000 +++ rmailsum.el 2011-10-22 21:22:00.443672000 +0000 @@ -71,16 +71,22 @@ ;; Regenerate the contents of the summary ;; using the same selection criterion as last time. +;; If current buffer is the summary buffer (rather than the Rmail +;; buffer), then does not make summary displayed if not already +;; displayed. ;; M-x revert-buffer in a summary buffer calls this function. (defun rmail-update-summary (&rest ignore) (apply (car rmail-summary-redo) (cdr rmail-summary-redo))) ;;;###autoload -(defun rmail-summary () - "Display a summary of all messages, one line per message." +(defun rmail-summary (&rest no-display) + "Display a summary of all messages, one line per message. + +If no-display is set, updates/creates the summary buffer, but does not +necessarily display it." (interactive) - (rmail-new-summary "All" '(rmail-summary) nil) - (unless (get-buffer-window rmail-buffer) + (rmail-new-summary "All" '(rmail-summary t) nil) + (unless (or no-display (get-buffer-window rmail-buffer)) (rmail-summary-beginning-of-message))) ;;;###autoload I believe it is now safe to remove the FIXME from rmailout.el: ;; FIXME should re-use existing windows. (if (rmail-summary-exists) (rmail-select-summary (rmail-update-summary))) - Mark From unknown Fri Aug 15 16:24:39 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#9831: cause of bug found! [PATCH] Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 09:22:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9831 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: mark.lillibridge@hp.com Cc: 9831@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 9831-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9831.131936167732518 (code B ref 9831); Sun, 23 Oct 2011 09:22:02 +0000 Received: (at 9831) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2011 09:21:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RHuF3-0008SR-5l for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 05:21:17 -0400 Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]) by debbugs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RHuF0-0008SC-D9 for 9831@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 05:21:15 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 23 Oct 2011 09:19:43 -0000 Received: from 62-47-45-42.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.45.42]) [62.47.45.42] by mail.gmx.net (mp070) with SMTP; 23 Oct 2011 11:19:43 +0200 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+EDV1DGlmEmVzjnjzKELEHRla7si/OzxmLmaI684 4+e5Hw3YOYQC/N Message-ID: <4EA3DC2F.9040303@gmx.at> Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 11:19:43 +0200 From: martin rudalics User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) 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: -2.5 (--) > Because this bug doesn't occur in Emacs 22, I compared to that code's > version of rmail-summary: I'm not convinced that the issue you see is related to that reported by the OP. But since I'm not familiar with rmail could you please explain to me what happens and what should happen below. > [Rmail 22] > (defun rmail-summary () > "Display a summary of all messages, one line per message." > (interactive) > (rmail-new-summary "All" '(rmail-summary) nil)) > > [Rmail 23.3] > (defun rmail-summary () > "Display a summary of all messages, one line per message." > (interactive) > (rmail-new-summary "All" '(rmail-summary) nil) > (unless (get-buffer-window rmail-buffer) > (rmail-summary-beginning-of-message))) > > > As you can see, some well-meaning person added the functionality of > move-to-start-of-message to the display summary command ('h') and broke > rmail-output and associated functions. I checked and none of the other > summary generating functions (e.g., rmail-summary-by-labels) have this > functionality (added). I seem to understand that you show in some window a buffer called rmail-buffer, presumably containing some messages you read. Now you want to produce a summary in a buffer called rmail-summary-buffer and do this by invoking the command `rmail-summary'. That command winds up by calling `rmail-summary-show-message' which does `rmail-pop-to-buffer' on rmail-buffer (I don't understand why it does do that). Anyway, since that buffer already appears on some window, `rmail-summary-show-message' should in principle reuse that window and IIUC not change that window's point, i.e., not change what you see in that window. But if my summary is correct then (rmail-new-summary "All" '(rmail-summary) nil) should always make sure that rmail-buffer appears in some window and the test coming next (unless (get-buffer-window rmail-buffer) (rmail-summary-beginning-of-message))) should always fail (unless rmail-buffer is shown on another frame) so no such deliberate movement should occur. However, my summary apparently fails to tell what you see, so could you please tell me what happens instead and why? And, as mentioned above, I don't understand how what you describe here corresponds to the bug reported by John: His seems a problem with the command invoked by typing `o' yours when typing `h'. martin From unknown Fri Aug 15 16:24:39 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#9831: cause of bug found! [PATCH] Resent-From: Mark Lillibridge Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 20:24:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9831 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: martin rudalics Cc: 9831@debbugs.gnu.org Reply-To: mark.lillibridge@hp.com Received: via spool by 9831-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9831.131940140928697 (code B ref 9831); Sun, 23 Oct 2011 20:24:01 +0000 Received: (at 9831) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2011 20:23:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RI4Zt-0007So-7s for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:23:29 -0400 Received: from gundega.hpl.hp.com ([192.6.19.190]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RI4Zp-0007Sb-WA for 9831@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:23:27 -0400 Received: from mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com (mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com [15.25.115.25]) by gundega.hpl.hp.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id p9NKLtax017789 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:21:55 -0700 Received: from ts-rhel5 (ts-rhel5.hpl.hp.com [15.25.118.27]) by mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/HPL-PA Hub) with ESMTP id p9NKLruO008760; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:21:53 -0700 Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:21:53 -0700 Message-Id: From: Mark Lillibridge In-reply-to: <4EA3DC2F.9040303@gmx.at> (message from martin rudalics on Sun, 23 Oct 2011 11:19:43 +0200) References: <4EA3DC2F.9040303@gmx.at> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 15.0.48.190 X-Spam-Score: -3.5 (---) 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: -3.5 (---) > > Because this bug doesn't occur in Emacs 22, I compared to that code's > > version of rmail-summary: > > I'm not convinced that the issue you see is related to that reported by > the OP. But since I'm not familiar with rmail could you please explain > to me what happens and what should happen below. Sorry, more background. The bug OP and I am reporting is as follows: we have two Rmail buffers, say A and B, each with summary buffers. However, only A and it's summary are displayed in windows. We then output the current message from A to B via 'o'. The bug is that at this point the summary for B becomes displayed when it should not. Why? The filing code updates the summary for the buffer the messages being filed to (e.g., B) so that it shows the message just added to that buffer if appropriate. This should not cause that summary to be displayed but it does due to the bug. Why? The summary is updated via (rmail-update-summary). Historically, this does not cause the updated buffer to be displayed, but because of the bug if this summary was produced by rmail-summary, it will be displayed. Why? rmail-update-summary makes a saved function call (depending on the filtering requested, a different call is necessary to rebuild the summary) to update the summary. If the summary was originally created via rmail-summary, then the saved call is (rmail-summary), which because of the bug displays the summary. Why? Because someone incorrectly added code to display the summary buffer on summary update to rmail-summary. I changed the code so that rmail-summary when called by the user (e.g., via 'h') does always display the summary but does not do so when called via rmail-update-summary. Is this more clear? I think the part you were unclear about is that there are two Rmail buffers involved, each with their own summary. - Mark From unknown Fri Aug 15 16:24:39 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#9831: cause of bug found! [PATCH] Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:34:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9831 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: mark.lillibridge@hp.com Cc: 9831@debbugs.gnu.org, jpff Received: via spool by 9831-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9831.13194488216553 (code B ref 9831); Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:34:01 +0000 Received: (at 9831) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Oct 2011 09:33:41 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RIGub-0001he-1m for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 05:33:41 -0400 Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]) by debbugs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RIGuY-0001hP-NG for 9831@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 05:33:40 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2011 09:32:01 -0000 Received: from 62-47-38-136.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.38.136]) [62.47.38.136] by mail.gmx.net (mp065) with SMTP; 24 Oct 2011 11:32:01 +0200 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19GWIokZPpGyLBSi14ivhSHtieVvRMq5HrQhaxLNF ZBeHDqgke3DAyv Message-ID: <4EA5308F.2050608@gmx.at> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:31:59 +0200 From: martin rudalics User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4EA3DC2F.9040303@gmx.at> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) 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: -2.5 (--) > Sorry, more background. The bug OP and I am reporting is as > follows: we have two Rmail buffers, say A and B, each with summary > buffers. However, only A and it's summary are displayed in windows. We > then output the current message from A to B via 'o'. The bug is that at > this point the summary for B becomes displayed when it should not. I'm probably too silly to understand. John was talking about "o" not doing the right thing, but IIUC "o" calls `rmail-output' and not `rmail-summary-output' in his case. At least that's what I deduct from his "When reading mail o writes the message to another file, or buffer if it is loaded" and the doc-string of `rmail-output' saying "Append this message to mail file FILE-NAME". Then John says that "It also changes to that buffer and this seriously interferes with work flow, as it is inconsistent with when the file is not in a buffer" but unfortunately I don't understand what "changes to that buffer" means in this context. Moreover, John was saying that "This seems fairly recent behaviour and is causing significant problems" but I don't find any recent reference to a change of `rmail-summary' in the Logs. Finally, John nowhere talked about point moving to some inconvenient position. John could you please clarify these issues? > Why? The filing code updates the summary for the buffer the > messages being filed to (e.g., B) so that it shows the message just > added to that buffer if appropriate. This should not cause that summary > to be displayed but it does due to the bug. > > Why? The summary is updated via (rmail-update-summary). > Historically, this does not cause the updated buffer to be displayed, Can you tell me when and where this was changed? > but because of the bug if this summary was produced by rmail-summary, it > will be displayed. > > Why? rmail-update-summary makes a saved function call (depending on > the filtering requested, a different call is necessary to rebuild the > summary) to update the summary. If the summary was originally created via > rmail-summary, then the saved call is (rmail-summary), which because of > the bug displays the summary. > > Why? Because someone incorrectly added code to display the summary > buffer on summary update to rmail-summary. According to our Logs `rmail-update-summary' hasn't been changed for many years. > I changed the code so that rmail-summary when called by the user > (e.g., via 'h') does always display the summary but does not do so when > called via rmail-update-summary. > > Is this more clear? I think the part you were unclear about is that > there are two Rmail buffers involved, each with their own summary. I still suppose your's is a different bug. But I suspect that any of these bugs may have its cause in a recent change of the buffer display routines. Unfortunately, I'm not of much help here since I don't use rmail. martin From unknown Fri Aug 15 16:24:39 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#9831: cause of bug found! [PATCH] Resent-From: Mark Lillibridge Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 02:57:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9831 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: martin rudalics Cc: 9831@debbugs.gnu.org, jpff@codemist.co.uk Reply-To: mark.lillibridge@hp.com Received: via spool by 9831-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9831.131968418231214 (code B ref 9831); Thu, 27 Oct 2011 02:57:02 +0000 Received: (at 9831) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Oct 2011 02:56:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RJG8k-00087P-44 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:56:22 -0400 Received: from madara.hpl.hp.com ([192.6.19.124]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RJG8g-00087G-FY for 9831@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:56:19 -0400 Received: from mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com (mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com [15.25.115.25]) by madara.hpl.hp.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id p9R2s1k7005663 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:54:01 -0700 Received: from ts-rhel5 (ts-rhel5.hpl.hp.com [15.25.118.27]) by mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/HPL-PA Hub) with ESMTP id p9R2rwko010425; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:53:58 -0700 Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:53:58 -0700 Message-Id: From: Mark Lillibridge In-reply-to: <4EA5308F.2050608@gmx.at> (message from martin rudalics on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:31:59 +0200) References: <4EA3DC2F.9040303@gmx.at> <4EA5308F.2050608@gmx.at> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 15.0.152.124 X-Spam-Score: -5.5 (-----) 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: -5.5 (-----) > > Sorry, more background. The bug OP and I am reporting is as > > follows: we have two Rmail buffers, say A and B, each with summary > > buffers. However, only A and it's summary are displayed in windows. We > > then output the current message from A to B via 'o'. The bug is that at > > this point the summary for B becomes displayed when it should not. > > I'm probably too silly to understand. John was talking about "o" not > doing the right thing, but IIUC "o" calls `rmail-output' and not > `rmail-summary-output' in his case. At least that's what I deduct from > his "When reading mail o writes the message to another file, or buffer > if it is loaded" and the doc-string of `rmail-output' saying "Append > this message to mail file FILE-NAME". Then John says that "It also > changes to that buffer and this seriously interferes with work flow, as > it is inconsistent with when the file is not in a buffer" but > unfortunately I don't understand what "changes to that buffer" means in > this context. Yes, 'o' calls rmail-output from an Rmail buffer and rmail-summary-output from the associated summary buffer. Both suffer from the bug we are talking about. What John means by "changes to that buffer" is that his window showing rmail-buffer A changes to a *different* rmail-buffer, namely the one he was outputting the message to. Note that this buffer change does not occur when the targeted rmail file is not held in a buffer, hence John's comments about inconsistency. > > but because of the bug if this summary was produced by rmail-summary, it > > will be displayed. > > > > Why? rmail-update-summary makes a saved function call (depending on > > the filtering requested, a different call is necessary to rebuild the > > summary) to update the summary. If the summary was originally created via > > rmail-summary, then the saved call is (rmail-summary), which because of > > the bug displays the summary. > > > > Why? Because someone incorrectly added code to display the summary > > buffer on summary update to rmail-summary. > > According to our Logs `rmail-update-summary' hasn't been changed for > many years. I never said that function got changed; remember that it is an indirection function. One of the functions it can call, namely rmail-summary, has been changed since Rmail 22. I don't have convenient access to the source control system so I can't tell you when that change was made. > I still suppose your's is a different bug. But I suspect that any of > these bugs may have its cause in a recent change of the buffer display > routines. Unfortunately, I'm not of much help here since I don't use > rmail. Let's ask John if my patch makes his bug go away. It certainly makes mine go way. - Mark From unknown Fri Aug 15 16:24:39 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#9831: Your bug report re: o and c-o in RMAIL change buffer References: <9452-Sat22Oct2011120849+0100-jpff@codemist.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <9452-Sat22Oct2011120849+0100-jpff@codemist.co.uk> Resent-From: Mark Lillibridge Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 03:12:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9831 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: jpff@codemist.co.uk Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, 9831@debbugs.gnu.org Reply-To: mark.lillibridge@hp.com Received: via spool by 9831-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9831.131968508132497 (code B ref 9831); Thu, 27 Oct 2011 03:12:02 +0000 Received: (at 9831) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Oct 2011 03:11:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RJGNE-0008S6-N9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:11:21 -0400 Received: from gundega.hpl.hp.com ([192.6.19.190]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RJGNB-0008Rx-Pi for 9831@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:11:18 -0400 Received: from mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com (mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com [15.25.115.25]) by gundega.hpl.hp.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id p9R394Tg008130 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:09:05 -0700 Received: from ts-rhel5 (ts-rhel5.hpl.hp.com [15.25.118.27]) by mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/HPL-PA Hub) with ESMTP id p9R392ZL010730; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:09:02 -0700 Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:09:02 -0700 Message-Id: From: Mark Lillibridge X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 15.0.48.190 X-Spam-Score: -3.5 (---) 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: -3.5 (---) Hi John. You reported an Rmail bug October 22: When reading mail o writes the message to another file, or buffer if it is loaded. It also changes to that buffer and this seriously interferes with work flow, as it is inconsistent with when the file is not in a buffer. This seems fairly recent behaviour and is causing significant problems. Could it stay in the originating buffer, or have an option so to do? We think we have a patch for your bug. Could you please try the following: * first, figure out again how to reproduce the problem you are seeing * evaluate the following elisp code: (defun rmail-summary (&rest no-display) "Display a summary of all messages, one line per message. If no-display is set, updates/creates the summary buffer, but does not necessarily display it." (interactive) (rmail-new-summary "All" '(rmail-summary t) nil) (unless (or no-display (get-buffer-window rmail-buffer)) (rmail-summary-beginning-of-message))) [just put mark and point around the above text then do M-x eval-region] * is the problem gone now? If that didn't work, can you please provide a more detailed description of the problem you are seeing, including how to reproduce it? - Thanks, Mark From unknown Fri Aug 15 16:24:39 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#9831: cause of bug found! [PATCH] Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:55:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9831 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: mark.lillibridge@hp.com Cc: 9831@debbugs.gnu.org, jpff@codemist.co.uk Received: via spool by 9831-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9831.13197092918623 (code B ref 9831); Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:55:01 +0000 Received: (at 9831) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Oct 2011 09:54:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RJMfj-0002F1-BZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:54:51 -0400 Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]) by debbugs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RJMfg-0002Eo-P8 for 9831@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:54:49 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2011 09:52:54 -0000 Received: from 62-47-54-146.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.54.146]) [62.47.54.146] by mail.gmx.net (mp050) with SMTP; 27 Oct 2011 11:52:54 +0200 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+NoEAxzXqN/A/d2sIKV2cTQKUSi72YN0+Q/0CZv+ vxy1H7XYLT2gj0 Message-ID: <4EA929F5.2080005@gmx.at> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:52:53 +0200 From: martin rudalics User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4EA3DC2F.9040303@gmx.at> <4EA5308F.2050608@gmx.at> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) 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: -2.5 (--) > Yes, 'o' calls rmail-output from an Rmail buffer and > rmail-summary-output from the associated summary buffer. Both suffer > from the bug we are talking about. Aha. > What John means by "changes to that buffer" is that his window > showing rmail-buffer A changes to a *different* rmail-buffer, namely the > one he was outputting the message to. Note that this buffer change does > not occur when the targeted rmail file is not held in a buffer, hence > John's comments about inconsistency. OK. I believe you now. > Let's ask John if my patch makes his bug go away. It certainly > makes mine go way. Good idea. Thanks, martin From unknown Fri Aug 15 16:24:39 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#9831: o and c-o in RMAIL change buffer Resent-From: Glenn Morris Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 09:33:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9831 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: mark.lillibridge@hp.com Cc: 9831@debbugs.gnu.org, jpff@codemist.co.uk Received: via spool by 9831-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9831.132126317412784 (code B ref 9831); Mon, 14 Nov 2011 09:33:02 +0000 Received: (at 9831) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Nov 2011 09:32:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RPsuK-0003K4-7n for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 04:32:54 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10] ident=Debian-exim) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RPsuH-0003Js-Qn; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 04:32:50 -0500 Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RPsth-0002UC-MP; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 04:32:13 -0500 From: Glenn Morris References: <9452-Sat22Oct2011120849+0100-jpff@codemist.co.uk> X-Spook: strategic ARPA Bletchley Park weapons of mass destruction X-Ran: l[<)!nu*."\-J$+A}41*lhV9yPdWmj]o+v@Lyo(6CYC8k*0&|U~K6JD@Fn*y+?|UB9,:~_ X-Hue: white X-Attribution: GM Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 04:32:13 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Mark Lillibridge's message of "Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:09:02 -0700") 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: -6.4 (------) 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 (------) close 9831 24.0.92 stop The OP: a) hasn't replied; b) did not mention summaries at all; and c) said this was "fairly recent" behaviour; whereas the issue identified occurs since 23.1, but only when summaries are present. Nevertheless, I think you probably identified the problem, and I committed a fix. Summary: emacs -Q C-u M-x rmail RET ~/xmail RET ; non-empty folder h C-x 1 C-u M-x rmail RET ~/RMAIL RET ; non-empty folder o RET ; output message from RMAIL to xmail At this point, xmail buffers appear.