From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#7494: 24.0.50; Why is `prefix-region' in a library by itself? Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:30:21 -0500 Message-ID: References: <5CD13207D93D40739A6E3AB9B3733186@us.oracle.com> <831v676vdl.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1290883526 23475 80.91.229.12 (27 Nov 2010 18:45:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 18:45:26 +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 19:45:16 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 1PMPls-0006Ym-0z for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 19:45:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54467 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PMPlr-0003k5-Gf for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:45:15 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37037 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PMPlV-0003aO-8a for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:44:54 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PMPlT-0002KY-VB for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:44:53 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:43251) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PMPlT-0002KT-Ps for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:44:51 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PMPSI-0004sf-Ge; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:25:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier 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 18:25:02 +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=B7494.129088229818752 (code B ref 7494); Sat, 27 Nov 2010 18:25:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 7494) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Nov 2010 18:24:58 +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 1PMPSE-0004sP-3H for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:24:58 -0500 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PMPSC-0004sC-AT for 7494@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:24:56 -0500 Original-Received: from pastel.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id oARIUMdb006597; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:30:23 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 02E6FA85E9; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:30:22 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Sat, 27 Nov 2010 08:11:01 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV3692=0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:25:02 -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:41935 Archived-At: Well, thank you all, Drew and Eli, for this fun discussion. Are those little mishaps entertaining or what? Stefan >>>>> "Drew" == Drew Adams writes: >> > You are certainly very quick when it doesn't count. ;-) >> >> It's unfair to post such comments. > You are silly to jump on such a comment (with a kidding smily yet!) as if it > were a nasty complaint or criticism. For the record, I do not consider Stefan > to act quickly only on bug reports that are unimportant. >> 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. > And I, for my part, would have closed the mistaken report sooner than within 6 > minutes, if I had had a bug number to close. > As soon as I posted the bug report I realized my mistake, but I had to wait > until the bug showed up at http://debbugs.gnu.org/ to get the number. I > specifically went to that site instead of waiting for the confirmation mail with > the bug number (which takes even longer), in order to shorten the time before > closing. IOW, I closed the bug as quickly as I knew how.