From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#10134: acknowledged by developer (close 10134) | [debbugs-tracker] Processed: close 10134 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:03:06 -0800 Message-ID: <9A88236690454156855D422BCF7FD65E@us.oracle.com> References: <87pqdltqjh.fsf@gnu.org><7B067E32FA18444AA4202D7EA0562F3E@us.oracle.com> <87lio98e6x.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1328983438 22948 80.91.229.3 (11 Feb 2012 18:03:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:03:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 10134@debbugs.gnu.org, 'Bob Proulx' To: "'Chong Yidong'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 11 19:03:56 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RwHIb-000181-VL for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 19:03:50 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50688 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RwHIa-0000rj-Ft for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:03:48 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:44784) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RwHIW-0000pT-Vr for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:03:46 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RwHIU-0006QQ-Uq for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:03:44 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:60975) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RwHIU-0006QL-TK for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:03:42 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RwHJm-0004T8-EP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:05:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:05:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10134 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 10134-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10134.132898348617154 (code B ref 10134); Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:05:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 10134) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Feb 2012 18:04:46 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36365 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RwHJW-0004Sc-3i for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:04:46 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com ([148.87.113.117]:45524) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RwHJS-0004SO-QA for 10134@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:04:43 -0500 Original-Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id q1BI3Efq009889 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:03:16 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt358.oracle.com (acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1BI3DIH010887 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:03:14 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt110.oracle.com (abhmt110.oracle.com [141.146.116.62]) by acsmt358.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q1BI3CKn003861; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:03:13 -0600 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.53.158) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:03:12 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <87lio98e6x.fsf@gnu.org> Thread-Index: Aczo47w5LgMgUmslRhGPYkZfk/UNtwAAUUWA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090205.4F36AD64.00CC,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:56797 Archived-At: > > Another bug closure with no explanation mail sent to the filer. > > Just a reminder that this is not really kosher. > > I hereby declare, under the religious authority vested in me by the > Church of Emacs, that closing bugs with no explanation mail does not > violate kosher laws. http://debbugs.gnu.org/server-control.html: close bugnumber [ fixed-version ] Close bug report #bugnumber. A notification is sent to the user who reported the bug, but (in contrast to mailing bugnumber-done) the text of the mail which caused the bug to be closed is not included in that notification. The maintainer who closes a report should ensure, probably by sending a separate message, that the user who reported the bug knows why it is being closed. Not providing an explanation for the closure requires the bug filer to look up the bug number, consult the bug thread on line, and reread the thread looking for an explanation. When you close a bug it might be obvious to you why it was closed, but it is not obvious to a user who receives only an automatic control message saying it was closed. The only information available to the user in that message is the bug's number and subject line. > > (Yes, I read the bug thread and I realize the bug has now > > been fixed.) > > ... especially when the objection is this silly. Silly and all a big joke to you perhaps. But to obtain that knowledge of what the closure meant (the bug was fixed) I still had to look up the bug thread and reread it. If the automatic message had said that it was fixed then I would not have needed to do that. Perhaps that part of the automatic messaging could be improved. If a bug has been fixed, knowledge of that fact is often all the filer needs. If it has not been fixed (e.g. was declared not-a-bug or wishlist or wont-fix), then additional explanation is typically needed.