From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: bug#13141: please review bug #13141 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 05:03:32 +0400 Message-ID: <87k3r7mjob.fsf@yandex.ru> References: <415AF94149E240B7BCB28128E45D3135@us.oracle.com> <20130119232015.GA517@acm.acm> <87obgk5npd.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1358730237 3413 80.91.229.3 (21 Jan 2013 01:03:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 01:03:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: acm@muc.de, "Stephen J. Turnbull" , 13141@debbugs.gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Richard Stallman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 21 02:04:15 2013 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 1Tx5o2-0000WU-Ef for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 02:04:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42631 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tx5nl-000576-D4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:03:53 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40651) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tx5ne-00056W-BR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:03:50 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tx5nZ-0007cA-MZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:03:46 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-la0-f47.google.com ([209.85.215.47]:48359) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tx5nZ-0007aJ-Ez; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:03:41 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-la0-f47.google.com with SMTP id fh20so5596085lab.34 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 17:03:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=3YfRVlNsvq6VvLlKm9mJpglrTVc/pTmzy0cKfWHse9c=; b=A60A18ehU3lJMCyBrvWcg+GVWVtTwsqUOLQQ7f0dlkuFbP+ciQG8OqD1GShak4gwJx kuo/X3VOGRdlrZluDp2IWiYuz3ktMDbJo1whsuPuXdocGvIXtx6P8W0EPmwOhGh42pv/ gJNkc9aVDhE8P8C16ZtC7A1tXTWbkbU70fq+aj1TNVIeSgCPJgY5ZGrX3KEid8Xfcg9y pVRBe6FttD4OH5NA+JmuoRQInyQ64hAJey38HEYgyekQgpdvRqOr7rUIZMB8Uh+NL/DQ G41uJn1br/9Dm38r0j1Lax9D2FK2sTbB8E+VLgFw7RBgenz5w8+i76Qfv0AzmPLsJL5k YvNA== X-Received: by 10.112.14.6 with SMTP id l6mr6820384lbc.81.1358730219587; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 17:03:39 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from SOL ([178.252.98.87]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f8sm4663263lbg.2.2013.01.20.17.03.37 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 20 Jan 2013 17:03:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:41:16 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (windows-nt) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.215.47 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:156520 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > Stephen J. Turnbull writes: > > I've had at least half a dozen cases > where users deleted automatically added information which I then > requested -- to no avail, since the reporters never responded. If there's no information at all, maybe the users didn't go through the Emacs bug reporting interface, writing the report directly in the email client. > To go out of their way to delete it makes me wonder why. Maybe it was > a valid reason. Could it be that there was something private in that > information which they specifically did not want to send? I usually delete most of it, because the default text looks messy, and I don't like sending emails that look untidy. Also, it's harder to find the actual report description if it's surrounded by auto-generated text. It's better now that some parts of it are just shown through the display property, but the user might not know/understand that. > Because of this consideration it would not be right to hide > that information. We should not try to trick our users into sending > us something they did not want to send. As it is, the exact information the user's sending is not immediately obvious, they'd have to carefully scroll though a fairly large chunk of text to know that. IMO, it would be better to ask about each potentially-sensitive section (last keystrokes, obviously; local paths, recent messages? maybe), and then include them as attachment or several.