From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#10873: 24.0.93; `report-emacs-bug' obscures bug-reporting buffer (!) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:36:29 +0100 Message-ID: <56802FAD.70803@gmx.at> References: <1716A09ADF16453DAA29A726CB402BA5@us.oracle.com> <87sirsc1lg.fsf@building.gnus.org> <281e9d1f-0853-4498-bd4f-7510213c0cab@default> <43f2b0b2-fafc-43a9-b56a-120b90878cbc@default> <838u4hk0um.fsf@gnu.org> <56800C2E.80300@gmx.at> <83bn9bhna2.fsf@gnu.org> <56801A87.7050107@gmx.at> <8360zjhkyh.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1451241443 5155 80.91.229.3 (27 Dec 2015 18:37:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 18:37:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 10873@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 27 19:37:12 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aDGBq-000725-EY for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:37:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42406 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDGBp-0006MA-Bw for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:37:09 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40406) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDGBm-0006M5-0i for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:37:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDGBi-000503-QE for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:37:05 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:37126) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDGBi-0004zz-Mj for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:37:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aDGBi-0005JA-7n for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:37:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 18:37:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10873 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 10873-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10873.145124141120388 (code B ref 10873); Sun, 27 Dec 2015 18:37:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 10873) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Dec 2015 18:36:51 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44728 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aDGBX-0005Ik-CP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:36:51 -0500 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]:50590) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aDGBV-0005IX-LK for 10873@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:36:50 -0500 Original-Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([213.162.68.11]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LcSAg-1ZobjN3wWM-00jmfM; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:36:40 +0100 In-Reply-To: <8360zjhkyh.fsf@gnu.org> X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:VLmMTcTNKxo/7n4IWs7hjcoMxaV6qbTJL4kTWRS70/fMCenS9jK mPeQnQhyZ0dC6xw1/jMxJYpDm4zFcD0yyc+9bIfla4WM2ZK42T1uKif4hFqhuWqpne3fB6S Xl8M4u/lMpSa3bZVGkNMQelDpVgzko5+S9OdUvJMebTbrYt0qpRqKj1/zYDjVhrLzdf6gp6 Ld+L4QYyLcybhFvbBg70g== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:ljynFF1Jo8g=:DuMgpqihLqI/XvK2aEaO1S VhSRYsoWnnMjml9/CRdbNHjngu5UqFC4F1amlH4tUKilkRrtaLsTv8OkfBAdfS25S/tuBFOmr zUwlcecOL61lQFxxzCCWbUsynwVSeDEpJmJe0DjpjgUbCZSsegWks2miP9N/jo4lcKNn/YKzS 2FHBxOQ6iLevbZHWNplMSAfYW/IdTRkRHL2AdbDdP1FdFD4UsVCEX2gKLmebgUP6A3ioZA4Mt bPFqfKYhgWHoKT3mVGKWvhO9qbiNaIowC/YkUwWhHFvTQVmjvsviatOLxqapKcPNng4phWWLz NrH7taNwZUsykpe4FY4ok+mnMp0Q/O/cp9WWHJxQhIzPp0StrpsG1kKV7sJAwPm2FLcJurNok N5VXFfjdF+Q2TLvUgH7Hq8QlW5L9KJiwAZA+lK0LvGmwDNET8Cm6fbtHP3a2ll+hQM7cR+1xO kfIUOmn7zRIFqYY4ggNXcUniwj4OEQ6OCS979nnkXJ8MG8Z3OPQkR8E2zGL4gp1dsCYPuWxlx XaXLWOz3rrTH1HuYl9ol9kLEJaj5fBGIuGItgOHr9o5XLhzOKXwofKibmYN6L2xdoJLShHsf4 LEuOtrChKWtpJOSdSduo+9lajuKx6GvIt7jC2lo7neyA+/ZBRksVj4TcwE24qLce6zT5Njna7 Fp6r3aNVc71TLIXMfS1I7tCK2QDy55zobAN+wBs26Wytdb7rFbNNKwMVa6kre3iTRNeZiUgwc YITLMlzIvv1IywW17TSvQ6e9pmlvVT9A0XMB0zhcWl1PAepvcSXcUImeTpn77y//cE2Rr/h1 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:110820 Archived-At: >> Conceptually, =E2=80=98save-window-excursion=E2=80=99 should not be u= sed around >> =E2=80=98display-buffer=E2=80=99 although it might be harmless in the= case at hand. > > If it's harmless in this case, why not do it? I said "it might be harmless". In private code I would never do such a thing. And =E2=80=98save-window-excursion=E2=80=99 can't be used here an= yway: We would have to save the configuration current before displaying the mail buffer and restore it after the mail was sent. Now suppose the reporter asked for other completions while editing the mail. It's the last of those completions that would be shown after the configuration has been restored and not the one shown at the time of saving the configuration. >> I have no opinion other than that fixing this particular problem migh= t >> introduce problems for people who would, for example, like to write a= >> report based on the appearance of text shown in a particular window. > > They can always display that window when they want to. They know it > existed, so they will know where and how to look. > > OTOH, having the bug-report buffer not show at all is much worse: a > user who is not very fluent in reporting bugs, or maybe even does that= > for the first time, will never know what to look for. Such a user must first have to be smart enough to write a bug report with an open *Completions* window. Any such user will know what to look for. >> So to be sure: Does the present report warrant the proposed solution?= > > If you can propose a better one that has fewer potential problems, I'm= > all ears. If not, let's solve this bug that way. We must solve it. I have no better solution. martin