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: Basic questions about the triage process Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 05:38:18 +0200 Message-ID: <83oad7b845.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83ege5dvra.fsf@gnu.org> <837fjvdf89.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1451533080 20968 80.91.229.3 (31 Dec 2015 03:38:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 03:38:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ahyatt@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Noam Postavsky Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 31 04:37:55 2015 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 1aEU3m-0000EN-IL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 04:37:54 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54536 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aEU3l-0002Nj-K7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:37:53 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34384) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aEU3Z-0002Nc-7k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:37:41 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aEU3V-00061Q-TU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:37:41 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:37847) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aEU3V-00061J-NF; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:37:37 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1998 helo=HOME-C4E4A596F7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aEU3V-0004Ca-11; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:37:37 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Noam Postavsky on Wed, 30 Dec 2015 20:19:27 -0500) 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: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:197225 Archived-At: > Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 20:19:27 -0500 > From: Noam Postavsky > Cc: Andrew Hyatt , emacs-devel@gnu.org > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > One needs to read the error message and resubmit the control message > > modified as appropriate. E.g., one example I tend to bump into is > > when I merge a bug with another one, and debbugs refuses because their > > state is different -- in that case one needs to change the state of > > one of the two bugs and then resubmit the merge directive. > > Is there some reason not to use forcemerge? It still requires a new control message, so what I said is still valid. And as long as you do have to send a new control message, why not do it right? Also, note this caveat: > Note: you cannot merge with an archived bug - you must unarchive it first. IOW, even forcemerge won't always work.