From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#49631: 28.0.50; dired-hide-details-mode Probably introduced at or before Emacs version 24.4 Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 14:31:16 +0300 Message-ID: <83zguf52ez.fsf@gnu.org> References: <838s227bv2.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="32283"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 49631@debbugs.gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 21 13:32:11 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1m6ASR-0008Dt-12 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 13:32:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38920 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m6ASQ-0000VU-2A for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 07:32:10 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36854) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m6ASI-0000VJ-HJ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 07:32:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:52981) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m6ASI-0004Zx-9s for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 07:32:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1m6ASI-0007Bu-7l for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 07:32:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 11:32:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 49631 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 49631-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B49631.162686709326233 (code B ref 49631); Wed, 21 Jul 2021 11:32:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 49631) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Jul 2021 11:31:33 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36294 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1m6ARp-0006ok-47 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 07:31:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:38978) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1m6ARn-0006jK-LW for 49631@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 07:31:32 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:44672) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m6ARi-0004PZ-9T for 49631@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 07:31:26 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:3181 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m6ARW-0002ni-P7; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 07:31:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Richard Stallman on Tue, 20 Jul 2021 20:52:12 -0400) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:210419 Archived-At: > From: Richard Stallman > Cc: 49631@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 20:52:12 -0400 > > I think we can implement an efficient, accurate, automatic way to > determine which release each function appeared in. > > We could run a script on each Emacs release to find all the function > definitions in it, then make a sorted list of their names. By > comparing these, we can find for each function the first release it > was defined in. > > We only need to scan each release once, all in the same way. We would > scan the old releases at the start, and scan each new release when it > is made, adding new functions to the records. > > There could be a few functions for which that does not give correct > results, as they were defined in weird ways. We could add those > functions manually to the records. Since they won't be many, we could > afford to do that by hand. > > Scanning a new release will never alter the information about > functions in previous releases, so once we have fixed an exception, it > will stay fixed. Yes, this could work. Patches are welcome to implement this.