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#1477: 23.0.60; Customize "not marked HIDDEN" is unclear Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 15:25:32 -0700 Message-ID: <54C36CE4A54340728295DD511061E6B3@us.oracle.com> References: <001701c954d6$30970d30$0200a8c0@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 1310336804 8770 80.91.229.12 (10 Jul 2011 22:26:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:26:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 1477@debbugs.gnu.org To: "'Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 11 00:26:36 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 1Qg2SS-0006xt-Iz for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:26:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34151 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg2SQ-0006iD-SI for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:26:35 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:57548) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg2Rw-0006fm-PE for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:26:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg2Rv-0005wG-6O for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:26:04 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:58532) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg2Ru-0005w6-Sb for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:26:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg2Ru-0000ky-76; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:26:02 -0400 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: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:26:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 1477 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: notabug Original-Received: via spool by 1477-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B1477.13103367572895 (code B ref 1477); Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:26:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 1477) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jul 2011 22:25:57 +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 1Qg2Ro-0000ke-VZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:25:57 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com ([148.87.113.117]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qg2Rn-0000kR-Hf for 1477@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:25:56 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p6AMPlAB019535 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:25:49 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt358.oracle.com (acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6AMPkou000596 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:25:47 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt118.oracle.com (abhmt118.oracle.com [141.146.116.70]) by acsmt358.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p6AMPfGW002657; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:25:41 -0500 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.32.168) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 15:25:40 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Acw/TJXJbeWOUyIHQKSmR3KVHQFvigAAokvQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090203.4E1A26ED.007D:SCFMA922111,ss=1,re=-4.000,fgs=0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:26:02 -0400 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: , 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:48520 Archived-At: > > It should have simply been closed, which records it as a _bug_ that > > has been _fixed_. It should not have been recorded as `notabug'. > > I thought "fixed" was if it was fixed as a result of the bug > report, and "notabug" was if it turned out (when investigated) > that the report reported something that wasn't a bug (ever or still). That would be "not reproducible", I think. To me, "not reproducible" refers to the time when you try to reproduce it. In other software you would also be trying to reproduce it using the same version as the report, but that's another story. To me, "not a bug" means that you _can_ reproduce the behavior as reported, and it is the intended intended behavior. I'm no expert on this. And it's not a big deal - certainly not important for this bug report. It might be good to know what the designers of this bug system had in mind, however. > Perhaps we need a third flag, like > "probablyabugatthetimeitwasreportedbutnotabugwhensomeonelooked > atthebugreport"? We can't really guess what might have been at the time. We can only compare what we test now with what was reported. But in a case like this one, we could perhaps believe the OP who tested both earlier and later, if he says it was fixed. ;-) > Or perhaps just close it without a flag. Opinions? Is there a "not reproducible" category? If so, I'd think that would be the closest in a case like this. Just one, non-expert opinion.