From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Harald Hanche-Olsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: bug#13141: please review bug #13141 Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:46:29 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <20130120.204629.1199903806666685722.hanche@math.ntnu.no> References: <87ip6sofn7.fsf@yandex.ru> <20130120085455.93b0f44394a4db0ffcebd5c9@gmail.com> <87mww45nkh.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1358711203 18314 80.91.229.3 (20 Jan 2013 19:46:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 19:46:43 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 20 20:47:02 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 1Tx0r3-0000l8-W6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:46:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38146 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tx0qn-0005Gb-1N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:46:41 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:35004) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tx0qh-0005GL-H7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:46:38 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tx0qb-000423-4B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:46:35 -0500 Original-Received: from hylle02.itea.ntnu.no ([129.241.56.101]:54929) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tx0qa-00041y-TF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:46:29 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hylle02.itea.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06C8C2C024 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:46:25 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hylle02.itea.ntnu.no Original-Received: from localhost (245.248.202.84.customer.cdi.no [84.202.248.245]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hanche) by hylle02.itea.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B03982C019; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:46:24 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <87mww45nkh.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> X-URL: http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/ X-Mailer: Mew version 6.5 on Emacs 24.3.50 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 129.241.56.101 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:156503 Archived-At: ["Stephen J. Turnbull" (2013-01-20 07:19:10 UTC)] > Experienced developers know that what experienced users "know" often > enough just ain't so. > > The only case where users are in a good position to decide is about > privacy-sensitive information that might be in traces or keystroke > logs, etc. I admit to being one of those who routinely deletes much of the noise before submitting a bug report. But then, whenever possible, I try to figure out a way to reproduce the bug starting from emacs -Q. In which case Major and minor modes, recent input, and recent messages are truly irrelevant, and so I delete them before submitting the bug report. (An extreme case is #11358, where I have deleted *all* the predetermined info.) In any case, I hardly ever report a bug immediately after encountering it. I am usually too busy trying to get stuff done, so I finish that first, then investigate the bug, typically in a separate emacs instance, and then submit a bug report. In which case I am quite confident that recent input and messages are beside the point, so I delete them. But perhaps I am very unusual as bug reporters go. In any case, I don't really see the need for more options. If I can delete irrelevant parts from the bug reports, so can anybody else. I don't think we need to make it any easier than it already is, especially as it appears some people are already deleting more than they should. But perhaps they should be told, somehow, to review recent input and messages for private content that they may not wish to reveal to the world. - Harald