From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs Subject: Re: incomplete comment colorization in terminals Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:08:45 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20080311231514.B718249C0BB@daedalus.stanford.edu> <200803120445.m2C4jcDe015828@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> <200803130640.m2D6eoM5011012@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> <200803140416.m2E4GiKr016910@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205507356 25899 80.91.229.12 (14 Mar 2008 15:09:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:09:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Rob Riepel , Glenn Morris , emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org To: Dan Nicolaescu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 14 16:09:44 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JaBXK-0004AM-Cv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:09:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JaBWk-0005eJ-Qs for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:08:58 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JaBWh-0005eA-MB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:08:55 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JaBWg-0005dq-7Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:08:55 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JaBWg-0005dn-42 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:08:54 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JaBWf-000312-Lk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:08:53 -0400 Original-Received: from mx10.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JaBWf-0001MO-0x for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:08:53 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JaBWc-00030E-1c for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:08:53 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.pppoe.ca ([206.248.154.182]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JaBWb-000306-NH; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:08:49 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEALox2kdMCrZy/2dsb2JhbACpYoEI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,501,1199682000"; d="scan'208";a="16056548" Original-Received: from smtp.pppoe.ca ([65.39.196.238]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP; 14 Mar 2008 11:08:45 -0400 Original-Received: from pastel.home ([76.10.182.114]) by smtp.pppoe.ca (Internet Mail Server v1.0) with ESMTP id USW81245; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:08:45 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 834F47FDA; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:08:45 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <200803140416.m2E4GiKr016910@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> (Dan Nicolaescu's message of "Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:16:44 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:92572 gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs:21572 Archived-At: >> >> Should we add a new entry for emacs-22.2 to correct these issues? >> > >> > Yes, please. >> >> I already did. > Wouldn't it be better if the new text you added be in the 22.2 section? > It's not very likely that 22.1 users would read pass the 22.2 section. > Just add a note that this has been present in 22.1 too. Exactly, Stefan