From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Karl Fogel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Suggestion to indicate fixed version when closing a bug Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 16:17:05 -0500 Message-ID: <87r50c5dpq.fsf@floss.red-bean.com> References: <83d3bwn7mu.fsf@gnu.org> <5dhb18p7i7.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <834nx8mcud.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Karl Fogel NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1323551843 26134 80.91.229.12 (10 Dec 2011 21:17:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 21:17:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 10 22:17:17 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1RZUIF-000850-Cs for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 22:17:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43763 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RZUID-0005DG-Oq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 16:17:13 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:49569) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RZUIA-0005BF-FM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 16:17:11 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RZUI9-0007bI-Ju for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 16:17:10 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-qw0-f41.google.com ([209.85.216.41]:63813) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RZUI9-0007b3-8M; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 16:17:09 -0500 Original-Received: by qan41 with SMTP id 41so2477043qan.0 for ; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 13:17:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:reply-to:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=QzpWDX6xW1HihZ5ILdiehioiRS5DI2qAnyLaK6/VH8A=; b=jfh/dCBa1r245yS/Wz70yONs9WWwgib9mSAQtacX7jlkEmVPFMIA+yjLP/DVNoBQib PNo13t+stvJIGuXzp8VePdv2EF6lI3RRuvbZ22Z9WpWV2UkagzGLmBH0FEG54quG1HlV nxfMrB18i3FnPyFiJ0GWoLuKaAyeTzPD+wDRI= Original-Received: by 10.224.188.16 with SMTP id cy16mr12097217qab.32.1323551828663; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 13:17:08 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from floss.red-bean.com (cpe-66-65-49-129.nyc.res.rr.com. [66.65.49.129]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dj9sm2269535qab.18.2011.12.10.13.17.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 10 Dec 2011 13:17:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <834nx8mcud.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 10 Dec 2011 21:43:54 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.216.41 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:146627 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> I think it is easy to do, and useful so that people who are experiencing >> a bug can easily check if it is supposed to be fixed in some later >> version of Emacs. This may be particularly useful during pretesting, >> when version numbers change more rapidly. > >The information is error prone and people will forget to do that. If >we cannot produce that information automatically, it will be >unreliable. This is not something that has to be done 100% of the time to be useful; whenever it is done, it is useful. It's rare for the information to be unreliable. Other multi-developer projects I've worked with follow this practice, and the reliability of the information has not generally been an issue (for that matter, most of the devs remember to do it most of the time). I agree it would be better for the information to be produced automatically. But doing it manually is better than not doing it at all, which would appear to be the alternative right now.