bug#3146:

bug#3146:

[Adrian Robert]

I vote for getting rid of it due to the duplication, and the fact  
that people either don't know about it or don't like it.  Also if it  
would require handling Leopard and Tiger (which is still a viable,  
heavily used OS) separately, that is a pain.

bug#3146:

[Stefan Monnier]

> I vote for getting rid of it due to the duplication, and the fact that
> people either don't know about it or don't like it.  Also if it  would
> require handling Leopard and Tiger (which is still a viable,  heavily used
> OS) separately, that is a pain.

Getting rid of code specific to proprietary platforms always sounds good
to me,


        Stefan

bug#3146:

[Eli Zaretskii]

Who or what truncated the rest of the Subject line for this bug
report?

bug#3146:

[Adrian Robert]

On Jun 1, 2009, at 9:59 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> Who or what truncated the rest of the Subject line for this bug
> report?

If you hit "reply" on the web interface, it does not transfer the  
subject automatically.  I don't always remember to manually copy it.

bug#3146:

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: 3146@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com
> From: Adrian Robert <adrian.b.robert@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 17:06:36 +0700
> 
> 
> On Jun 1, 2009, at 9:59 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > Who or what truncated the rest of the Subject line for this bug
> > report?
> 
> If you hit "reply" on the web interface, it does not transfer the  
> subject automatically.  I don't always remember to manually copy it.

Check the headers: it wasn't my mail to which I was responding.

I was asking who or what truncated the subject of this discussion
somewhere along the way.  The subject is now unreadable by humans,
because it includes on the bug number, but not its description.

bug#3146:

[Adrian Robert]

On May 31, 2009, at 10:14 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:

>> I vote for getting rid of it due to the duplication, and the fact  
>> that
>> people either don't know about it or don't like it.  Also if it   
>> would
>> require handling Leopard and Tiger (which is still a viable,   
>> heavily used
>> OS) separately, that is a pain.
>
> Getting rid of code specific to proprietary platforms always sounds  
> good
> to me,

Would this be OK for 23.1 or wait for 23.2?  As David says there is  
an alternative (also platform-specific) solution for the problem it  
solves for users, and I don't believe many people use it anyway.

bug#3146:

[Stefan Monnier]

> Would this be OK for 23.1 or wait for 23.2?

I think it's OK for 23.1.


        Stefan