From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Removing bugs from the blockers Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 11:36:49 +0300 Message-ID: <831t569wwu.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20160509235343.17047.73943@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> <20160509235343.759D0220128@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1463128632 32001 80.91.229.3 (13 May 2016 08:37:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 08:37:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 13 10:37:07 2016 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 1b18ai-0003PJ-VQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 May 2016 10:37:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33397 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b18ah-0003EN-Vx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 May 2016 04:36:59 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47127) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b18aU-0003B8-6z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 May 2016 04:36:47 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b18aO-0002Ip-38 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 May 2016 04:36:45 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:33749) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b18aN-0002Ib-VS; Fri, 13 May 2016 04:36:40 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4618 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1b18aL-0005va-JY; Fri, 13 May 2016 04:36:38 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Dmitry Gutov on Fri, 13 May 2016 00:35:37 +0300) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:203818 Archived-At: > From: Dmitry Gutov > Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 00:35:37 +0300 > > 20420 is not very important, and likely wontfix. > 22107 - same. > 22527 is not very important. > 19479 is a crapfest, and is unlikely to be fixed soon (we haven't even > fixed the basic signature verification functionality yet, see the other > bugs, and that's shameful). Agreed. Additional triage: 22434 -- caused by fixing another bug, affects a minor feature, and won't be fixed unless someone motivated works on it 23144 -- we don't know how to fix it; maybe talking to GTK maintainers could help 22884 -- IMO we did everything possible, so the bug could be closed 22338 -- shows up only in rare situations, and reasons are not well understood; suggest to close 17976 -- actually, a feature request, so should not be blocking 20352 -- I thought this was recently resolved, no? 21489 -- is most probably the result of refactoring of keystroke echoing, and probably won't be fixed 17693 -- not reproducible on my machine, and no one responded to my request for reproduction 23360 -- does anyone have a better idea than introducing a variable to control the affected code (which is mostly unneeded, but sometimes is)? 22440 -- someone who knows about package.el should look at this 21650 -- MH-E bug, handled there 23513 -- includes a patch; someone who knows about package.el should look at this 22795 -- not reproducible, should probably be closed, as I've not heard from the OP for a long time 22465 -- includes a patch that should be applied, and the bug closed 20247 -- appears in very rare situations, so shouldn't block the release 21182 -- the blamed commit seems unrelated, so should probably be tagged not reproducible 19548 -- is worded too generally, and is therefore hard to work on; perhaps Glenn could make post specific complaints, which then could be handled one by one 23050 -- is a manifestation of an old bug 18125, and also includes 2 ideas for solution; also, is specific to a certain workflow, so there's a workaround 21871 -- discussion ends with an unanswered question to Stefan 22527 -- sounds like it should be closed? 21422 -- my opinion on that is in the discussion; 'nuff said 19717 -- a patch was suggested not long ago; can someone review it? 21874 -- sounds like it should be closed? 22295 -- undo-related, I hope Phillip will be able to look into it 22147 -- should be closed, I think (why is it on the blocking list?) My conclusion from reviewing these bugs is: I don't really understand how come some of the bugs were designated as "blocking". A more general conclusion (from both these and other bug reports) is that we tend to break valid use cases when we refactor some core parts of Emacs, and the people who worked on refactoring are not always willing to work on cleaning up the breakage it caused. For example, the above list includes a few bugs for which the offending commit was identified, but the guilty parties don't seem to be eager to work on that.