Emacs pretest bug reports

Emacs pretest bug reports

[Richard Stallman]

There is a suggestion that we make emacs-pretest-bug an alias for
emacs-devel.  That means pretest bug reports will come here first.

Does anyone think this is a bad idea?

RE: Emacs pretest bug reports

[Drew Adams]

> There is a suggestion that we make emacs-pretest-bug an alias for
> emacs-devel.  That means pretest bug reports will come here first.
>
> Does anyone think this is a bad idea?

Not necessarily. But why not keep it separate. Emacs developers who are
interested can subscribe to that list. And people who are not interested
won't see that traffic.

RE: Emacs pretest bug reports

[Nick Roberts]

Drew Adams writes:
 > > There is a suggestion that we make emacs-pretest-bug an alias for
 > > emacs-devel.  That means pretest bug reports will come here first.
 > >
 > > Does anyone think this is a bad idea?
 > 
 > Not necessarily. But why not keep it separate. Emacs developers who are
 > interested can subscribe to that list. And people who are not interested
 > won't see that traffic.

Who would be interested in Emacs development, but not be interested in bug
reports for CVS Emacs?  (Which might be for the area of Emacs that person is
interested in.)

Subscribing to one list means that discussion on the other list can be missed,
which sometimes results in it being duplicated a bit later.  It will also stop
the temptation to cross post to both lists.

I think it will be convenient for the large majority of subscribers.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob

Re: Emacs pretest bug reports

[Miles Bader]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> There is a suggestion that we make emacs-pretest-bug an alias for
> emacs-devel.  That means pretest bug reports will come here first.
>
> Does anyone think this is a bad idea?

No; I think it's a good idea.

I'm subscribed to both, and have always thought it was suboptimal that
technical bug discussions which are clearly of interest to emacs-devel
readers (and which would benefit from their input) sometimes happen on
emacs-pretest-bug.

For existing emacs-devel readers, at least, it wouldn't be any burden,
because the traffic on emacs-pretest-bug is fairly light even right
before release.  For emacs-pretest-bug readers, I suppose they might not
like the additional traffic of emacs-devel though.

-Miles
-- 
o The existentialist, not having a pillow, goes everywhere with the book by
  Sullivan, _I am going to spit on your graves_.

Re: Emacs pretest bug reports

[Glenn Morris]

Richard Stallman wrote:

> There is a suggestion that we make emacs-pretest-bug an alias for
> emacs-devel.  That means pretest bug reports will come here first.

I think that in principle there is some benefit to having a separate
emacs-pretest-bug, eg it makes it easy to see all bugs in one place
(in the absence of a bug tracker).

In practice, it's pretty broken, because:

i) some people report bugs to emacs-devel

ii) you in particular seem to like forwarding bug reports from
emacs-pretest-bug to emacs-devel, which potentially leads to
duplication of effort (eg when eedjits like me fail to notice this and
followup to the original bug report).


Would there be any use to messages that come from the
emacs-pretest-bug list being tagged (eg [emacs-pretest-bug]) in the
subject line? Again, I'm thinking of an easy way to see all bugs (and
again, it's broken by i) above).


Would you do this for gnu-emacs-bug too?

Re: Emacs pretest bug reports

[Jan Djärv]

Drew Adams skrev:
>> There is a suggestion that we make emacs-pretest-bug an alias for
>> emacs-devel.  That means pretest bug reports will come here first.
>>
>> Does anyone think this is a bad idea?
> 
> Not necessarily. But why not keep it separate. Emacs developers who are
> interested can subscribe to that list. And people who are not interested
> won't see that traffic.

Usually the people that can fix the bugs that come from emacs-pretest-bug are 
on emacs-devel.  And often emacs-devel needs to be included in the discussion 
as well if the bug is not easily fixed.

I think having two lists is redundant, we need only one.

	Jan D.

Re: Emacs pretest bug reports

[Kim F. Storm]

Jan Djärv <jan.h.d@swipnet.se> writes:

> I think having two lists is redundant, we need only one.

Agree.  It also makes it easier to search for bug reports - since
many bugs are already reported directly to emacs-devel, or the
discussions about them are split across the two lists.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Emacs pretest bug reports

[Richard Stallman]

    Would there be any use to messages that come from the
    emacs-pretest-bug list being tagged (eg [emacs-pretest-bug]) in the
    subject line? Again, I'm thinking of an easy way to see all bugs (and
    again, it's broken by i) above).

Since messages to emacs-pretest-bug normally are sent using M-x
report-emacs-bug, we could make it set up the subject that way.

    Would you do this for gnu-emacs-bug too?

I don't know; that's a separate question.  Let's stick to one
question at a time.