From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Brett Gilio Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Magit obsolete ? Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 11:15:36 -0600 Message-ID: <875ztup5fr.fsf@posteo.net> References: <20190207172223.21fc232f@mistral> <20190208105259.58bd8c03@mistral> <87lg2qp6j7.fsf@russet.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="33345"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: mu4e 1.0; emacs 26.1 Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, jonetsu To: Phillip Lord Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 08 18:16:20 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gs9lB-0008T2-M6 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 18:16:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60314 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gs9lA-00065e-M4 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 12:16:16 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:49099) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gs9ke-00065O-Uu for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 12:15:45 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gs9kd-0005P7-TW for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 12:15:44 -0500 Original-Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:57493) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gs9kd-0005NH-Ek for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 12:15:43 -0500 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F84E2400E6 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 18:15:40 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1549646140; bh=GdULPqX1i5FcKx1637yWVZMDib4WIqN4EpixkVIg490=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=VXXhhi8AgOtEKEA0NVNX6X5mXWs8DTcZlGhcFAHf8Y0enjw3dxZGem/ypA/ZwkSEO v/cnbl+kE2PeQvnh2f+gCCGAom+CW3NsijELOY5uPRS3oXOkNoKidA7vXVW2qyDXEA Oz+olvVfnLC8C6aCGYD+cf7zCP4rcNougVqBr2sxj50MTIEJHc9+Lit6SiiJK8FkXR ZTE8XHjB0WScTOhGtmeZ7oJQq148AvOB0JVkAXWWt/j34+96VLRXgbTDDF6AHSiekc t5vt1M67zQ/2qPmWUB/0AmOhDZ3qKDReMTLIZsGsWNkSezWKw36AH3iCzBVN6faDOl MOhqyXPbFIDIg== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 43x1zG4T0Qz9rxK; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 18:15:38 +0100 (CET) In-reply-to: <87lg2qp6j7.fsf@russet.org.uk> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 185.67.36.66 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:119291 Archived-At: Phillip Lord writes: > jonetsu writes: > >> On Fri, 08 Feb 2019 10:03:37 -0500 >> Stefan Monnier wrote: >> >>> Looks like a bug/misfeature somewhere in package.el. >>> Could you `M-x report-emacs-bug` for it so we can figure out what's >>> going on? Maybe it's "correct" but presented in a confusing way >>> (e.g. the particular version you're looking at is superceded by a >>> newer version), or maybe.... >> >> Never sent a bug report before. I wrote the description then pressed >> C-c twice and accepted the default email sender.... which was this >> firefox-related thing, which I don't use. I use claws-mail. I Tried >> to resend again so perhaps I can specify another way but it did nto ask >> me for the emailer again. > > > I've sent a bug report in. Just email "bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org" to make > a report. It's bug#34390. > > "Obsolete" means "there is a more recent version also installed" as far > as I can tell, rather than just "outdated". I agree it's not a good > word. Not quite sure what a better one would be. I replied to that email, but for posterity effort, I am in favor of the term "superseded".