From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#60467: 30.0.50; primitive-undo: Changes to be undone by function different from announced Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2023 15:29:26 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87o7ri74qv.fsf@localhost> <9bc9c69ac20a37ded741@heytings.org> <9bc9c69ac282c0148962@heytings.org> <87h6x9mgdv.fsf@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="28875"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 60467@debbugs.gnu.org, Alan Mackenzie , Ihor Radchenko To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 03 16:30:32 2023 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 1pCjFG-0007H9-FX for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2023 16:30:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pCjEz-00020k-GM; Tue, 03 Jan 2023 10:30:14 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pCjEq-0001y6-MP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2023 10:30:09 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pCjEo-0001ri-Sp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2023 10:30:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pCjEo-0000gf-P8 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2023 10:30:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Gregory Heytings Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2023 15:30:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 60467 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 60467-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B60467.16727597692569 (code B ref 60467); Tue, 03 Jan 2023 15:30:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 60467) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Jan 2023 15:29:29 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46509 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pCjEH-0000fN-6a for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2023 10:29:29 -0500 Original-Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:57284) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pCjEG-0000fF-0g for 60467@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2023 10:29:28 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20220101; t=1672759766; bh=k0JcD98736/ErbVMS+D3TWnygcX5CZ+8aZ8PL3zQxCw=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=wRy2AVQ+rCPcqvfABrB2l11j+WNMscLIb8ZYWYYcFenlxu9UYJg1LSp34PfaYzSjb fMSo3m0CnIQ/3W2CKh02lJoFs2rwhEO6KesCYy8o/Sv8C5zJW67iaN7g/ETjh3O8nh +Z2gCwvLnCAaa9Ewod+1rq9uLE2dNaOxZPfCG65O5rWNn1X3PNlyPD+2HQQqJGSzcP VfylgkFK7vPgWzW2KQcJY3B5TSUNwMvnzq1dLjuaDBoPiru3iAadLMiI6bBCGpMHVu M19k17AlSpnK7bO/arNKdhB1SECo4ZS//BYlmmBOctCV3f+yd5gHS7Gd1jQ+/Ifqbz ZF0PDAxPPfpOw== In-Reply-To: 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-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:252415 Archived-At: > > What would go wrong if we applied a patch like the one below? > With that patch, the "combine-change-calls: buffer-undo-list broken" message would be displayed with the recipe of this bug report. And timestamp entries would be added to what is "body-undo-list" in my patch. It's not clear to me that this could cause problems, but I guess it's safer to not include them, given that they were never included, and that the intention of the original code was to exclude them.