BJM: Fan mail from some flounder? RJS: No, this is what I really call a message...

BJM: Fan mail from some flounder? RJS: No, this is what I really call a message...

[Drew Adams]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1591 bytes --]

Sorry, but I cannot fathom this. I came across these three messages, floating in
a sea of others that look similar.

Two of them say that I should expect "a substantive response shortly" from
Glenn. The third refers cryptically to bugs #398 and #239 (but also to other,
unrelated bugs), telling me that "'close' is deprecated" and (euphemistically?
;-)) inviting me to send any further explanations to myself. AFAICT, I've
received nothing so far from Glenn about these bugs, but perhaps that will come
and perhaps I will recognize it when it does come.

I receive many such mails, most of which, though titled (only) "Processed: your
mail", have nothing to do with bugs that I reported. It's very difficult to try
to fish out of this general mail soup any flotsam that might actually be
relevant to bugs that I've filed.

I've said before that this bug email interface is a mess, so far at least, and
so far as I am concerned as a user. The response to that feedback was a
condescending explanation that (1) the bug tracker is for bug maintainers
anyway, not users, and (2) users should just change mail clients or fix their
clients to handle such messages better.

Unfortunately, I must inform you that my response will be to (1) continue to
help by submitting bug reports, but (2) continue to use the same (very common)
mail client, and (3) undoubtedly miss most followup correspondance about the
reports I have submitted. I cannot afford the time to try to decipher what might
be going on. HTH.

http://www.evanmorris.com/fanmailflounder.wav
http://www.word-detective.com/052206A.html



[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 11155 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2564 bytes --]

Processing commands for control@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com:

> close 239
bug#239: 23.0.60; \ is considered whitespace syntax in Lisp mode?
'close' is deprecated; see
http://emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com/Developer.html#closing.
bug closed, send any further explanations to "Drew Adams"
<drew.adams@oracle.com>

> tags 253 moreinfo
bug#253: inhibit-startup-message bug in 22.2.1
There were no tags set.
Tags added: moreinfo

> severity 267 wishlist
bug#267: dired-do-query-replace-regex replace ALL
Severity set to `wishlist' from `normal'

> tags 284 unreproducible
bug#284: Trunk CVS emacs: Stack overflow in equal
There were no tags set.
Tags added: unreproducible

> owner 341 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
bug#341: c-indent-command misindents?
Owner recorded as Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>.

> owner 343 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
bug#343: C mode asks twice about local variables
bug#347: C mode asks twice about local variables
Owner recorded as Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>.

> merge 364 365
bug#364: rmail-set-attribute
bug#365: rmail mode
Merged 364 365.

> tags 366 moreinfo
bug#366: Problem executing emacs
There were no tags set.
Tags added: moreinfo

> severity 385 minor
bug#385: [PATCH] comment-indent doesn't respect comment-indent-function
Severity set to `minor' from `normal'

> close 387
bug#387: Processed (with 4 errors): as
'close' is deprecated; see
http://emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com/Developer.html#closing.
bug closed, send any further explanations to rms@gnu.org

> tags 390 unreproducible moreinfo
bug#390: 23.0.60; killed buffer in list from function buffer-list?
There were no tags set.
Tags added: unreproducible, moreinfo

> tags 393 unreproducible moreinfo
bug#393: Compiled emacs fails to run
There were no tags set.
Tags added: unreproducible, moreinfo

> close 398
bug#398: 23.0.60; M-x customize-option Info-hide TAB not recognized
'close' is deprecated; see
http://emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com/Developer.html#closing.
bug closed, send any further explanations to "Drew Adams"
<drew.adams@oracle.com>

> close 405
bug#405: Emacs 22.2.1 in X behaves improperly when run with low memory limits
'close' is deprecated; see
http://emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com/Developer.html#closing.
bug closed, send any further explanations to Kwang Ketcham <kketcham@cs.hmc.edu>

> tags 443 moreinfo
bug#443: [Fwd: emacs installation - segmentation fault during unexec]
There were no tags set.
Tags added: moreinfo

>
End of message, stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Don Armstrong
(administrator, Emacs bugs database)




[-- Attachment #2.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5074 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3774 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 450 bytes --]

This is an automatic notification regarding your bug report
#398: 23.0.60; M-x customize-option Info-hide TAB not recognized,
which was filed against the emacs package.

It has been marked as closed by one of the developers, namely
Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>.

You should be hearing from them with a substantive response shortly,
in case you haven't already. If not, please contact them directly.

Don Armstrong
(administrator, Emacs bugs database)


[-- Attachment #3.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1068 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #4: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3770 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #4.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 448 bytes --]

This is an automatic notification regarding your bug report
#239: 23.0.60; \ is considered whitespace syntax in Lisp mode?,
which was filed against the emacs package.

It has been marked as closed by one of the developers, namely
Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>.

You should be hearing from them with a substantive response shortly,
in case you haven't already. If not, please contact them directly.

Don Armstrong
(administrator, Emacs bugs database)


[-- Attachment #4.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1066 bytes --]

Re: BJM: Fan mail from some flounder? RJS: No, this is what I really call a message...

[Don Armstrong]

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008, Drew Adams wrote:
> Sorry, but I cannot fathom this. I came across these three messages,
> floating in a sea of others that look similar.
> 
> Two of them say that I should expect "a substantive response
> shortly" from Glenn. The third refers cryptically to bugs #398 and
> #239 (but also to other, unrelated bugs), telling me that "'close'
> is deprecated" and (euphemistically? ;-)) inviting me to send any
> further explanations to myself.

The reason why close is deprecated is precisely because it has no
information as to why the bug was closed. It should not be used.

If you're reaching for close, send a message to bugnum-done instead.


Don Armstrong

-- 
"Because," Fee-5 explained patiently, "I was born in the fifth row.
Any fool would understand that, but against stupidity the very Gods
themselves contend in vain."
 -- Alfred Bester _The Computer Connection_ p19

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

RE: BJM: Fan mail from some flounder? RJS: No, this is what Ireally call a message...

[Drew Adams]

> > Sorry, but I cannot fathom this. I came across these three messages,
> > floating in a sea of others that look similar.
> > 
> > Two of them say that I should expect "a substantive response
> > shortly" from Glenn. The third refers cryptically to bugs #398 and
> > #239 (but also to other, unrelated bugs), telling me that "'close'
> > is deprecated" and (euphemistically? ;-)) inviting me to send any
> > further explanations to myself.
> 
> The reason why close is deprecated is precisely because it has no
> information as to why the bug was closed. It should not be used.
> 
> If you're reaching for close, send a message to bugnum-done instead.

Sorry, but was that intended for me? 

I'm not "reaching for close". I have nothing to do with "close". Someone (or
something) else wrote "close". I just forwarded the crazy mails I received that
use "close".

Re: BJM: Fan mail from some flounder? RJS: No, this is what Ireally call a message...

[Don Armstrong]

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008, Drew Adams wrote:

> > > Sorry, but I cannot fathom this. I came across these three messages,
> > > floating in a sea of others that look similar.
> > > 
> > > Two of them say that I should expect "a substantive response
> > > shortly" from Glenn. The third refers cryptically to bugs #398 and
> > > #239 (but also to other, unrelated bugs), telling me that "'close'
> > > is deprecated" and (euphemistically? ;-)) inviting me to send any
> > > further explanations to myself.
> > 
> > The reason why close is deprecated is precisely because it has no
> > information as to why the bug was closed. It should not be used.
> > 
> > If you're reaching for close, send a message to bugnum-done instead.
> 
> Sorry, but was that intended for me? 
> 
> I'm not "reaching for close".

You've just answered your own question.


Don Armstrong

-- 
Q: What Can a Thoughtful Man Hope for Mankind on Earth, Given the
Experience of the Past Million Years?
A: Nothing.
 -- Bokonon _The Fourteenth Book of Bokonon_ (Vonnegut _Cats Cradle_)

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu