From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs
Subject: bug#28607: 27.0.50; help-fns unsolicited elisp loading
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 21:16:34 +0300
Message-ID: <83h8lhjyf1.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87efqtoc9u.fsf@udel.edu> <3cvak51n96.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<20170926155126.kujypxt33oxbzxsq@logos.localdomain>
	<83in5xjzak.fsf@gnu.org>
	<CAKyxw10XCzp1fY96vcm_Ep_hZsF3a-YQeUnSkUc1p5WvPtDYhw@mail.gmail.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org
X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1530555372 15103 195.159.176.226 (2 Jul 2018 18:16:12 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 18:16:12 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: 28607@debbugs.gnu.org
To: Mark Oteiza <mvoteiza@udel.edu>
Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 02 20:16:08 2018
Return-path: <bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17])
	by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1fa3Mt-0003nR-Ln
	for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2018 20:16:07 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34754 helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1fa3Oz-000824-AJ
	for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2018 14:18:17 -0400
Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46791)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1fa3Oo-0007zB-Lq
	for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2018 14:18:07 -0400
Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1fa3Ok-0006AC-38
	for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2018 14:18:06 -0400
Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:36009)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1fa3Oj-0006A2-V7
	for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2018 14:18:02 -0400
Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1fa3Oj-0001zM-PK
	for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2018 14:18:01 -0400
X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org
Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
Resent-Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 18:18:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.28607.B28607.15305554267544@debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 28607
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
Original-Received: via spool by 28607-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B28607.15305554267544
	(code B ref 28607); Mon, 02 Jul 2018 18:18:01 +0000
Original-Received: (at 28607) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Jul 2018 18:17:06 +0000
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43901 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1fa3Nq-0001xc-5a
	for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2018 14:17:06 -0400
Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:55143)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>) id 1fa3Np-0001wz-80
	for 28607@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2018 14:17:05 -0400
Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>) id 1fa3Nf-0005T9-Fo
	for 28607@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2018 14:17:00 -0400
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:33679)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)
	id 1fa3Nf-0005T2-Ax; Mon, 02 Jul 2018 14:16:55 -0400
Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4520 helo=home-c4e4a596f7)
	by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
	(Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)
	id 1fa3Nd-0005e7-Q2; Mon, 02 Jul 2018 14:16:54 -0400
In-reply-to: <CAKyxw10XCzp1fY96vcm_Ep_hZsF3a-YQeUnSkUc1p5WvPtDYhw@mail.gmail.com>
	(message from Mark Oteiza on Mon, 2 Jul 2018 14:05:14 -0400)
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43
X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs,
	the Swiss army knife of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-gnu-emacs>,
	<mailto:bug-gnu-emacs-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-emacs/>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-gnu-emacs-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnu-emacs>,
	<mailto:bug-gnu-emacs-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs"
	<bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:148118
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.bugs/148118>

> From: Mark Oteiza <mvoteiza@udel.edu>
> Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 14:05:14 -0400
> Cc: Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>, 28607@debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> >> On 26/09/17 at 11:40am, Glenn Morris wrote:
> >> > Why did you close 28048 as fixed and open this new report?
> >> > It's the same thing.
> >>
> >> You're right. I should have just retitled the old report.
> >
> > As bug#28048 is marked "done", should this one be closed as well?
> 
> No, as I wrote previously, it probably would have made more sense to
> retitle bug#28048.

So "it's the same thing" above is inaccurate or incorrect?  (The title
doesn't bother me, only the essence.)

> Evidently this was ignored for the 26 release, so now I'm not sure
> what the point of blocking bugs is.

It wasn't ignored.  But as no one seemed to want to pick up the
gauntlet, and since my assessment of the bug's severity was that it's
relatively minor, I saw no reason to block the release due to it.