From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#39200: Release 27.1 Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 22:01:11 +0300 Message-ID: <83pn7h6vbc.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87tv4qxr2x.fsf@gmx.de> <83v9h96w2h.fsf@gnu.org> <878se5jil5.fsf@gmx.de> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="1878"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: stefan@marxist.se, 39200@debbugs.gnu.org To: Michael Albinus Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 23 21:02:11 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k9vFq-0000Or-Ll for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 21:02:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49482 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k9vFp-0005fg-Kr for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 15:02:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60548) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k9vFi-0005fL-9J for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 15:02:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:43574) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k9vFh-0001LX-VV for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 15:02:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1k9vFh-0004Xg-Sw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 15:02:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 19:02:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 39200 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 39200-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B39200.159820928517416 (code B ref 39200); Sun, 23 Aug 2020 19:02:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 39200) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Aug 2020 19:01:25 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55120 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1k9vF7-0004Wq-Bh for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 15:01:25 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:50244) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1k9vF5-0004Wd-LQ for 39200@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 15:01:24 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:57211) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k9vF0-0001I2-9b; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 15:01:18 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2884 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1k9vEz-0004KP-MN; Sun, 23 Aug 2020 15:01:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: <878se5jil5.fsf@gmx.de> (message from Michael Albinus on Sun, 23 Aug 2020 20:57:42 +0200) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:186079 Archived-At: > From: Michael Albinus > Cc: Stefan Kangas , 39200@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 20:57:42 +0200 > > > We didn't miss them. I decided they weren't important enough to hold > > the release. > > That's pretty OK as maintainer decision. But shouldn't the two bugs then > be removed from blocking ones for bug#39200? At least a communication > about this decision I have missed, perhaps because I didn't see it. Some people react emotionally when I close bugs against their opinions, so I sometimes decide not to do that. > And should the two bugs now be marked as blocking for 27.2.? I don't mind, but if the motivation for fixing them will remain as it was until now, they will probably be ignored for 27.2 as well. it is hard to treat seriously a bug report that no one feels motivated enough to work on.