From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#9831: cause of bug found! [PATCH] Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:31:59 +0200 Message-ID: <4EA5308F.2050608@gmx.at> References: <4EA3DC2F.9040303@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1319448768 28177 80.91.229.12 (24 Oct 2011 09:32:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:32:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 9831@debbugs.gnu.org, jpff To: mark.lillibridge@hp.com Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 24 11:32:43 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RIGtf-0006ki-Fp for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:32:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40828 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RIGte-0002sM-QA for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 05:32:42 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:35544) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RIGtX-0002rR-Nk for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 05:32:39 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RIGtT-0000k3-Kw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 05:32:35 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:32966) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RIGtT-0000jy-Fj for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 05:32:31 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RIGuv-0001iF-Iv for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 05:34:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:34:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9831 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 9831-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9831.13194488216553 (code B ref 9831); Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:34:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 9831) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Oct 2011 09:33:41 +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 1RIGub-0001he-1m for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 05:33:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]) by debbugs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RIGuY-0001hP-NG for 9831@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 05:33:40 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2011 09:32:01 -0000 Original-Received: from 62-47-38-136.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.38.136]) [62.47.38.136] by mail.gmx.net (mp065) with SMTP; 24 Oct 2011 11:32:01 +0200 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19GWIokZPpGyLBSi14ivhSHtieVvRMq5HrQhaxLNF ZBeHDqgke3DAyv User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 05:34:01 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:53059 Archived-At: > Sorry, more background. The bug OP and I am reporting is as > follows: we have two Rmail buffers, say A and B, each with summary > buffers. However, only A and it's summary are displayed in windows. We > then output the current message from A to B via 'o'. The bug is that at > this point the summary for B becomes displayed when it should not. I'm probably too silly to understand. John was talking about "o" not doing the right thing, but IIUC "o" calls `rmail-output' and not `rmail-summary-output' in his case. At least that's what I deduct from his "When reading mail o writes the message to another file, or buffer if it is loaded" and the doc-string of `rmail-output' saying "Append this message to mail file FILE-NAME". Then John says that "It also changes to that buffer and this seriously interferes with work flow, as it is inconsistent with when the file is not in a buffer" but unfortunately I don't understand what "changes to that buffer" means in this context. Moreover, John was saying that "This seems fairly recent behaviour and is causing significant problems" but I don't find any recent reference to a change of `rmail-summary' in the Logs. Finally, John nowhere talked about point moving to some inconvenient position. John could you please clarify these issues? > Why? The filing code updates the summary for the buffer the > messages being filed to (e.g., B) so that it shows the message just > added to that buffer if appropriate. This should not cause that summary > to be displayed but it does due to the bug. > > Why? The summary is updated via (rmail-update-summary). > Historically, this does not cause the updated buffer to be displayed, Can you tell me when and where this was changed? > but because of the bug if this summary was produced by rmail-summary, it > will be displayed. > > Why? rmail-update-summary makes a saved function call (depending on > the filtering requested, a different call is necessary to rebuild the > summary) to update the summary. If the summary was originally created via > rmail-summary, then the saved call is (rmail-summary), which because of > the bug displays the summary. > > Why? Because someone incorrectly added code to display the summary > buffer on summary update to rmail-summary. According to our Logs `rmail-update-summary' hasn't been changed for many years. > I changed the code so that rmail-summary when called by the user > (e.g., via 'h') does always display the summary but does not do so when > called via rmail-update-summary. > > Is this more clear? I think the part you were unclear about is that > there are two Rmail buffers involved, each with their own summary. I still suppose your's is a different bug. But I suspect that any of these bugs may have its cause in a recent change of the buffer display routines. Unfortunately, I'm not of much help here since I don't use rmail. martin