From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eric Abrahamsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#70579: 30.0.50; gnus: Wrong unread count in the Group buffer Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 08:49:19 -0700 Message-ID: <877cg1r7k0.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> References: <87ttjo7q98.fsf@outlook.com> <87sez83foa.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <864jb78nbd.fsf@gnu.org> <87ttjo7q98.fsf@outlook.com> <87sez83foa.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <864jb78nbd.fsf@gnu.org> <87wmo2qptg.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87ttjo7q98.fsf@outlook.com> <87sez83foa.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <864jb78nbd.fsf@gnu.org> <87wmo2qptg.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87seyqqp5w.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87wmo2qptg.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <86pltux75z.fsf@outlook.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="8197"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) To: 70579@debbugs.gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:xyxSCv4VpQx++iH2w6MlPrQYJFc= Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri May 10 17:50:24 2024 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 1s5SVs-0001w1-1J for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 10 May 2024 17:50:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1s5SVh-00020n-HN; Fri, 10 May 2024 11:50:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1s5SVY-0001xt-Dj for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 10 May 2024 11:50:04 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1s5SVX-0007Ew-1p for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 10 May 2024 11:50:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1s5SVV-0003gS-O3 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 10 May 2024 11:50:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <87ttjo7q98.fsf@outlook.com> Resent-From: Eric Abrahamsen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 15:50:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 70579 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.171535617714144 (code B ref -1); Fri, 10 May 2024 15:50:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 May 2024 15:49:37 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42680 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1s5SV7-0003g4-5s for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 10 May 2024 11:49:37 -0400 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:39900) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1s5SV5-0003fy-9W for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 10 May 2024 11:49:35 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1s5SV4-0001fM-WD for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 10 May 2024 11:49:36 -0400 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1s5SV3-0007AM-G1 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 10 May 2024 11:49:34 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1s5SUz-0000ln-Rv for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 10 May 2024 17:49:29 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:284820 Archived-At: James Thomas via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" writes: [...] > Of course. I was only hoping that this would shed some light on the > other unread-count problems.... IMO this is low-severity. That was my hope too, bummer that it's its own bug. But still worth fixing. [...] >> I don't see why that should mean that you need a whole new buffer for >> editing the message > > I can see a possible use case: you might want two versions of a draft > message, one being a 'root' (or 'base') version. > >> , and the fact that there are now two "copies" of the >> message buffer causes further problems with the inflating article >> numbers (why I could sometimes see three or even four "jumps"). >> >> The patch removes the check for modification > > If my guess above is correct, this should be avoided. Hmm, I guess so, though I wonder how many people are making use of the ability to have two copies, vs how many are confused by it. But I suppose it ain't broke, so I shouldn't fix it. I do think I'll update the code to use `find-buffer-visiting', though. >> Anyway, please let me know if you can check the patch. [...] >>> There's also a small hiccup with its working: 'B DEL' in the recipe >>> above does not work (i.e. it's not deleted - is it related to it already >>> being marked with 'G' at that point?), unless I 'q', re-enter and retry. >> >> This issue remains. > > I'm mistaken about this too. I missed your explanation: > > Eric Abrahamsen wrote: > >> (the "B DEL" isn't necessary for the recipe, and in fact at that stage >> the message under point has already been deleted). The UX is fairly confusing, but it makes more sense if you remember that "edit" is actually just "delete-and-create". And if you use "C-c C-k" as intended :) Okay, there may be more bugs here, but I'll put this much in and close the report; please open a new report if you find more. Thanks, Eric