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#8119: 24.0.50; `mark-active' needs its doc string Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 08:00:41 -0800 Message-ID: References: <80D7750819194368B9899655D0AB5C9B@us.oracle.com> <19816.12136.85156.254849@fencepost.gnu.org> <56705938E5E64BB9880882471D813B12@us.oracle.com> <43C9C32D8540491CBBB509D57B314DB4@us.oracle.com> <837hcmq1dk.fsf@gnu.org> <834o7qpzxk.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1298736490 9362 80.91.229.12 (26 Feb 2011 16:08:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:08:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 8119@debbugs.gnu.org To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 26 17:08:05 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtMge-0008PM-67 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 17:08:05 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48762 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PtMgc-0006nF-Ll for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:08:02 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=48774 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PtMfX-0006JE-Jd for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:06:56 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PtMfW-0003U7-Er for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:06:55 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:35030) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PtMfW-0003Tv-DE for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:06:54 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtMZq-0007AB-DX; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:01:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:01:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 8119 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 8119-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B8119.129873605127514 (code B ref 8119); Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:01:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 8119) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Feb 2011 16:00:51 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtMZf-00079j-7j for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:00:51 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PtMZc-00079V-Ma for 8119@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:00:49 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com (rcsinet15.oracle.com [148.87.113.117]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id p1QG0f6h003127 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:00:42 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt353.oracle.com (acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id p1QFI82K020798; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:00:40 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt013.oracle.com by acsmt353.oracle.com with ESMTP id 1089492431298736037; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 08:00:37 -0800 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.48.161) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 08:00:37 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <834o7qpzxk.fsf@gnu.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 Thread-Index: AcvVy3GH3ci8vVbsROORfhSWGLbUnAAAEX5w X-Source-IP: acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090207.4D6923A9.00A5:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:01:02 -0500 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:44389 Archived-At: > > > FWIW, I see no harm at all in retitling, and I do see a certain > > > value in having the title express the essence of the bug report. > > > > And do you see such a policy as the general practice elsewhere? > > On my daytime job, I frequently retitle bug reports, because many of > my co-workers don't know how to express themselves in English too > well. OK, good to know. FWIW, my experience has been the opposite; bugs are not retitled. They often get clarified, corrected, reclassified, and merged, but not retitled AFAICT. It thus happens that one sees some bug titles that bear little apparent relation to the ultimate diagnosis (not to mention diagnoses along the way). The titles remain as originally posted, whether posted internally or by a customer. > I have yet to see anyone complain about that; all of the > correspondence about bugs quotes their numbers anyway. Yes, as I said, the bug number is the primary and unique identifier, and as such it nearly always appears in correspondence. But as Glen pointed out, titles can be used for searching, and replacing a user name of a problem by a developer name for it doesn't necessarily help users search for it. It might help some users, but it might well disadvantage others, including the OP.