From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Glenn Morris Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Don't report new bugs for Rmail?? Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:23:48 -0500 Message-ID: <0z63jtttbv.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <20090131104403.GQ4175@volo.donarmstrong.com> <20090131211929.GT4175@volo.donarmstrong.com> <20090131222401.GU4175@volo.donarmstrong.com> <20090201043312.GA4175@volo.donarmstrong.com> <35ab95txsr.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <18822.22784.740063.298053@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1233545153 10074 80.91.229.12 (2 Feb 2009 03:25:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 03:25:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs developers To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 02 04:27:07 2009 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 1LTpSg-0002ao-Lj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2009 04:27:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36821 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LTpRN-0006tX-Ju for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:25:41 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LTpRI-0006tS-S5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:25:36 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LTpRG-0006rm-E6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:25:35 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=44498 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LTpRG-0006rU-83 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:25:34 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:45474) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LTpRG-0001wP-1p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:25:34 -0500 Original-Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1LTpPY-000338-H1; Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:23:48 -0500 X-Spook: pre-emptive mindwar crypto anarchy INSCOM FTS2000 X-Ran: (MpSM`?6i`D$puOkZJr)enDItvp>)dp\qb&1n!U$/VF`W"}1WGD:/vwe<(11- X-Hue: white X-Attribution: GM In-Reply-To: <18822.22784.740063.298053@fencepost.gnu.org> (Glenn Morris's message of "Sun, 1 Feb 2009 21:22:56 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/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:108556 Archived-At: Glenn Morris wrote: > I think Jason had it right: > > For other sub-packages that come under the umbrella of the emacs > developers, we have assigned bugs to "emacs,PACKAGE", so that the > sub-package can be used as a filter in the web interface, but the emacs > maintainers continue to be kept in the loop. > > [...] > > People don't file bugs against those packages, since the only address > for filing bugs is for emacs. But they might get reassigned later. Sorry for taking so many mails to figure this out, but that means we _don't_ want rmail defining as a package. We _don't_ want bugs reporting against "rmail", because these will not show up in the list of "emacs" bugs. As has been said, we are using packages just as labels for administrative convenience. People don't need to worry about packages at all when they report a bug. (People who know what they are doing can use "emacs,rmail" to save us a bit of admin, but that need not be expected.) Yes, the web-pages are a bit misleading in this regard. But this is just an aspect of bug#750 IMO.