From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#8119: 24.0.50; `mark-active' needs its doc string Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 06:18:55 -0800 Message-ID: <43C9C32D8540491CBBB509D57B314DB4@us.oracle.com> References: <80D7750819194368B9899655D0AB5C9B@us.oracle.com><19816.12136.85156.254849@fencepost.gnu.org><56705938E5E64BB9880882471D813B12@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1298731030 15163 80.91.229.12 (26 Feb 2011 14:37:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 14:37:10 +0000 (UTC) To: "'Glenn Morris'" , <8119@debbugs.gnu.org> Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 26 15:37:04 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtLGZ-0001OD-Ag for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 15:37:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43365 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PtLGY-0000si-CV for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:37:02 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50779 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PtLGL-0000ns-TC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:36:51 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PtLGK-0003PJ-KI for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:36:49 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:38505) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PtLGK-0003PF-IF for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:36:48 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtL14-0004nV-1k; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:21:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 14:21:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 8119 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 8119-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B8119.129873005418422 (code B ref 8119); Sat, 26 Feb 2011 14:21:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 8119) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Feb 2011 14:20:54 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtL0w-0004n5-6p for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:20:54 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtL0t-0004mr-LK for 8119@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:20:52 -0500 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id p1QEKhlb004985 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 26 Feb 2011 14:20:45 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt355.oracle.com (acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id p1QBaRo4028446; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 14:20:43 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt020.oracle.com by acsmt353.oracle.com with ESMTP id 1040361941298729932; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 06:18:52 -0800 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.58.64) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 06:18:51 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 Thread-Index: AcvVh/W4V+aw4W7aSvuWYMe0mdQeJgAM2wIQ X-Source-IP: acsmt355.oracle.com [141.146.40.155] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090209.4D690C3B.00C2:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:21:02 -0500 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:44383 Archived-At: > > This is not the way bugs are handled - in any bug tracking > > system I've seen. > > Well. That certainly is an opinion. I disagree. OK, two opinions. Do you know of a company where bug reports are retitled by developers along the way, based on their current understanding of the underlying problem? Or are ever retitled, by developers or by anyone else? I don't. I cannot imagine how a customer would look upon such a practice (wrt customer-facing bugs). Admittedly, the real identifier is the bug number. And there is metadata for categorizing bugs, which also helps to identify them. But customers and others often search or sort using titles and terms in titles. User bug reports are often expressed (including titled) in user terms, whereas the root problem is often expressed in internal, implementation terms. In my experience, the improved understanding that developers add to a bug report gets added to the body (thread) or by recategorizing (metadata, merging etc.). It does not happen in general by retitling. What I see is that both the bug number and the title remain as unchanged identifiers. People might later refer to a different bug number because of a merge, but the original number is not changed - and similarly for titles. So yes, my reply represents an opinion, but one that reflects pretty widespread practice AFAICT. > IMO the title is a brief phrase that best summarizes what the > real issue is. This is for the convenience of developers in > locating bugs to work on, and for other users in locating reports > related to problems they may be having. The original title is not > always the best summary of the real problem, which is why the > retitle command exists. The original title is not always the best summary of the real problem - agreed 100%. But that's not the role of the title. The title summarizes the OP's view of the problem as originally reported - for better or worse. And later retitlings are not necessarily the best summary of the real problem either. > But rest assured I won't interfere with any more of your > reports, at all. Do what you feel you need to do, Glenn, but it's not about you, or me. My reply was an attempt to improve the process - just as yours was, no doubt. As you said, we have different opinions; that's all. I think retitling for such a case hurts more than helps; you don't agree. That's not a reason to sulk or go off in a huff. I appreciate your hard work, as does everyone else. My point was only about retitling - and it was not only about bugs that I report. It certainly was not personal. No one is asking that you take your marbles and go home. I hope you will reconsider about helping on bugs I submit, whether or not you reconsider wrt retitling bugs. Think of my argument as a question, if you like: What is the policy wrt retitling? I gave an argument against it (in general) - I think it gets in the way more than it helps. Your reply gives an argument in support of it. But what is the policy? When is it considered appropriate to use the `retitle' command?