From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Remove "Recent messages" from `M-x report-emacs-bug' Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 22:09:12 +0300 Message-ID: <83futrcalj.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87k2j3jq28.fsf@gnus.org> <83y47jchvx.fsf@gnu.org> <87h9e7hyvw.fsf@gnus.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1462821058 19097 80.91.229.3 (9 May 2016 19:10:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 19:10:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon May 09 21:10:57 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1azqZ9-0001Wa-AE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 09 May 2016 21:10:03 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43033 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1azqZ3-0002XR-C3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 09 May 2016 15:09:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46118) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1azqYo-0002OL-ER for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 May 2016 15:09:46 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1azqYi-0008IF-4n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 May 2016 15:09:41 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:39274) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1azqYi-0008HW-1U; Mon, 09 May 2016 15:09:36 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1150 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1azqYd-0003Vn-6Q; Mon, 09 May 2016 15:09:33 -0400 In-reply-to: <87h9e7hyvw.fsf@gnus.org> (message from Lars Ingebrigtsen on Mon, 09 May 2016 20:25:39 +0200) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:203737 Archived-At: > From: Lars Ingebrigtsen > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 20:25:39 +0200 > > But I'm wondering why our experiences here are so different. I don't > think I've ever found those messages important for handling a bug > report. I mean, ever. Do you often find that those messages are > important for tracking down bugs? Yes, definitely. Users seldom tell enough details about what they see or do, and the information collected by report-emacs-bug, including the *Messages* part, sometimes provides clues that it would be very hard to get at otherwise. Especially when the bug is not easily reproducible, or there's no recipe at all. The alternative is to start asking tedious questions about what they did and what Emacs displayed, deal with incomplete and inaccurate accounts of that, etc. > The few times I've even glanced at them, they've have mostly been about > something completely irrelevant -- what the user had been doing while > trying to figure out how to file the bug report, and not about what had > happened when the bug happened. That happens quite a lot, yes. But disregarding irrelevant data is easy enough. When the data _is_ relevant it is invaluable, so even if it happens infrequently, losing it would be a bad blow.