From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#22338: 25.0.50; deactivate-mark regression Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:06:36 +1100 Message-ID: <87twl93zib.fsf@gnus.org> References: <8337tyextd.fsf@gnu.org> <83y4bi9ap3.fsf@gnu.org> <834mds1c52.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1455606515 13450 80.91.229.3 (16 Feb 2016 07:08:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 07:08:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 22338@debbugs.gnu.org To: Leo Liu Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 16 08:08:23 2016 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 1aVZk5-0006xW-Qf for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:08:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40042 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aVZk0-000361-2R for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 02:08:08 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54257) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aVZjw-00034p-Vr for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 02:08:05 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aVZjt-0005Ml-PF for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 02:08:04 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:49968) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aVZjt-0005Mh-La for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 02:08:01 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aVZjt-0007Qu-Hx for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 02:08:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 07:08:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 22338 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 22338-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B22338.145560642628494 (code B ref 22338); Tue, 16 Feb 2016 07:08:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 22338) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Feb 2016 07:07:06 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40740 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aVZiz-0007PW-WA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 02:07:06 -0500 Original-Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]:58498) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aVZiy-0007PO-KK for 22338@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 02:07:04 -0500 Original-Received: from cpe-60-225-211-161.nsw.bigpond.net.au ([60.225.211.161] helo=mouse) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1aVZia-00073k-Bv; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:06:41 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Leo Liu's message of "Tue, 02 Feb 2016 09:36:59 +0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.91 (gnu/linux) X-MailScanner-ID: 1aVZia-00073k-Bv MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1456211201.50667@nQ+VaWA/xRULZa07U3fOTA 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:113120 Archived-At: Leo Liu writes: > On 2016-02-01 21:08 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> This is exactly what I did, and your observations now match mine. >> >> Do you still think the mark should be deactivated in that single case, >> or can we conclude that the problem is no longer significant and close >> this bug? >> >> Thanks. > > Yes I think that's the right thing to do. Will close it in a few days. That was two weeks ago... is this OK now? -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no