From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#7494: 24.0.50; Why is `prefix-region' in a library by itself? Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 10:09:10 +0200 Message-ID: <831v676vdl.fsf@gnu.org> References: <5CD13207D93D40739A6E3AB9B3733186@us.oracle.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1290845704 2818 80.91.229.12 (27 Nov 2010 08:15:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 08:15:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 7494@debbugs.gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 27 09:14:58 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PMFvu-0001qg-4U for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 09:14:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37577 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PMFvt-0001LP-DK for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 03:14:57 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=53082 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PMFvm-0001Ke-P7 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 03:14:51 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PMFvl-00027n-Fo for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 03:14:50 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:37659) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PMFvl-00027j-EP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 03:14:49 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PMFkL-0006ek-VJ; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 03:03:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 08:03:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 7494 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 7494-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B7494.129084492625517 (code B ref 7494); Sat, 27 Nov 2010 08:03:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 7494) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Nov 2010 08:02:06 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PMFjR-0006dW-MY for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 03:02:05 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PMFjO-0006d2-W4 for 7494@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 03:02:04 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LCJ00H00AAVDF00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for 7494@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 10:07:03 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.63.39]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LCJ00GIGAJP7ZF0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 10:07:03 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <5CD13207D93D40739A6E3AB9B3733186@us.oracle.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 03:03:01 -0500 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:41916 Archived-At: > From: "Drew Adams" > Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 19:00:38 -0800 > Cc: 7494@debbugs.gnu.org > > You are certainly very quick when it doesn't count. ;-) It's unfair to post such comments. The time it takes to respond to a bug report depends on any number of factors, including (but not limited to) the maintainer's understanding of the Emacs area where the bug happens, the time it takes to reproduce the problem, the amount of free time (holidays etc.), you name it. In this case, I'm guessing that it took about a few seconds to find out that there's no such code anywhere in Emacs.