From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mark Lillibridge Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#9831: cause of bug found! [PATCH] Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:21:53 -0700 Message-ID: References: <4EA3DC2F.9040303@gmx.at> Reply-To: mark.lillibridge@hp.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1319401365 26158 80.91.229.12 (23 Oct 2011 20:22:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 20:22:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 9831@debbugs.gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 23 22:22:41 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RI4Z6-0004WA-2R for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 22:22:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48398 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RI4Z5-0000wF-K9 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:22:39 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:36023) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RI4Z2-0000vz-0v for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:22:37 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RI4Z0-00085q-Pg for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:22:35 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:39450) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RI4Z0-00085m-Ms for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:22:34 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RI4aP-0007Tb-Kp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:24:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Mark Lillibridge Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 20:24:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9831 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 9831-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9831.131940140928697 (code B ref 9831); Sun, 23 Oct 2011 20:24:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 9831) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2011 20:23:29 +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 1RI4Zt-0007So-7s for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:23:29 -0400 Original-Received: from gundega.hpl.hp.com ([192.6.19.190]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RI4Zp-0007Sb-WA for 9831@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:23:27 -0400 Original-Received: from mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com (mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com [15.25.115.25]) by gundega.hpl.hp.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id p9NKLtax017789 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:21:55 -0700 Original-Received: from ts-rhel5 (ts-rhel5.hpl.hp.com [15.25.118.27]) by mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/HPL-PA Hub) with ESMTP id p9NKLruO008760; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:21:53 -0700 In-reply-to: <4EA3DC2F.9040303@gmx.at> (message from martin rudalics on Sun, 23 Oct 2011 11:19:43 +0200) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 15.0.48.190 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:24:01 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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:53043 Archived-At: > > Because this bug doesn't occur in Emacs 22, I compared to that code's > > version of rmail-summary: > > I'm not convinced that the issue you see is related to that reported by > the OP. But since I'm not familiar with rmail could you please explain > to me what happens and what should happen below. Sorry, more background. The bug OP and I am reporting is as follows: we have two Rmail buffers, say A and B, each with summary buffers. However, only A and it's summary are displayed in windows. We then output the current message from A to B via 'o'. The bug is that at this point the summary for B becomes displayed when it should not. Why? The filing code updates the summary for the buffer the messages being filed to (e.g., B) so that it shows the message just added to that buffer if appropriate. This should not cause that summary to be displayed but it does due to the bug. Why? The summary is updated via (rmail-update-summary). Historically, this does not cause the updated buffer to be displayed, but because of the bug if this summary was produced by rmail-summary, it will be displayed. Why? rmail-update-summary makes a saved function call (depending on the filtering requested, a different call is necessary to rebuild the summary) to update the summary. If the summary was originally created via rmail-summary, then the saved call is (rmail-summary), which because of the bug displays the summary. Why? Because someone incorrectly added code to display the summary buffer on summary update to rmail-summary. I changed the code so that rmail-summary when called by the user (e.g., via 'h') does always display the summary but does not do so when called via rmail-update-summary. Is this more clear? I think the part you were unclear about is that there are two Rmail buffers involved, each with their own summary. - Mark