From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Ilya N. Golubev" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: Re: shell completion documentation Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:51:30 +0300 Message-ID: <91mz5ql61p.fsf_-_@mo.msk.ru> References: <16k64g20tu.fsf@mo.msk.ru> <59ejumjzz2.fsf@mo.msk.ru> <843bazvd1b.fsf@mo.msk.ru> <82odq9aswt.fsf@mo.msk.ru> <87slflasys.fsf@mo.msk.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: dough.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1166205604 3164 80.91.229.10 (15 Dec 2006 18:00:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 18:00:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 15 19:00:03 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by dough.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1GvHLl-0007nP-1v for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:00:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GvHLk-00080Q-Lk for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 13:00:00 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GvFF5-0002EU-2G for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:44:59 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GvFF4-0002Cj-4M for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:44:58 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GvFF3-0002CP-W2 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:44:58 -0500 Original-Received: from [62.213.85.9] (helo=d-fens.mopniei.ru) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1GvFEk-0002uX-FR; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:44:39 -0500 Original-Received: from d-fens.mopniei.ru (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by d-fens.mopniei.ru (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBEHpVrp005012 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:51:31 +0300 Original-Received: (from gin@localhost) by d-fens.mopniei.ru (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBEHpUpf005011; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:51:30 +0300 X-Authentication-Warning: d-fens.mopniei.ru: gin set sender to gin@mo.msk.ru using -f Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:29:08 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:56:29 -0500 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list 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:15462 Archived-At: > This is too much detail, and too dense. That's the point. Just as much as any for `comint-dynamic-complete' bug report. > I think the existing text is ok. That is, requesting these details from *users* reporting bugs is ok, but for *maintainers* to document the same user visible details is unreasonable? The description with exactly that much detail has to exist, so that maintainers can quickly get to it and not ask users to educate them on package they are supposed to maintain. Perhaps the description is indeed too detailed for regular user. Then it just should be placed not in user manual, but elsewhere in emacs distribution, with reference to it from manual.