On 2024-01-19 08:10:25 -0800, Eric Abrahamsen wrote: > > On 01/19/24 12:55 PM, Michael Albinus wrote: > > Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz> writes: > > > >> Hello, > > > > Hi Tomas, > > > >> I think I found a bug in debbugs, however I am not sure if the bug is in > >> documentation or in the code. Steps to reproduce (in emacs -Q): > >> > >> In *scratch* buffer: > >> (require 'debbugs-gnu) > >> (debbugs-gnu-bugs 66531) > >> > >> In the new buffer open the message and navigate cursor to last message from Mike > >> Gran (47: ). Now, when I want to reply, I press S v and it opens a buffer with > >> (addresses are censored): > >> > >> To: Mike Gran > >> Cc: Tomas Volf , "xxx@debbugs-gnu-org" > >> Subject: Re: bug#66531: [PATCH] ftw: Fix getuid-or-false, getgid-or-false macros. > >> From: me@hostname.mail-host-address-is-not-set > >> --text follows this line-- > >> > >> So far that is expected. However when I want to quote the original message, I can, based on the reading of the manual, use C-u S v: > >> > >>> If prefix argument YANK is non-nil, the original article(s) will be yanked > >>> automatically. > >> > >> However while that does work, additional undocumented (and unwanted) changes are > >> done as well,producing a following message: > >> > >> To: Mike Gran > >> Cc: Tomas Volf , Tomas Volf , control@debbugs-gnu-org, > >> xxx@debbugs-gnu-org > >> Subject: Re: bug#66531: [PATCH] ftw: Fix getuid-or-false, > >> getgid-or-false macros., bug#66531: [PATCH] ftw: Fix getuid-or-false, > >> getgid-or-false macros., bug#66531: [PATCH] ftw: Fix getuid-or-false, > >> getgid-or-false macros., bug#66531: [PATCH] ftw: Fix getuid-or-false, > >> getgid-or-false macros., control message for bug #66531, control > >> message for bug #66531 > >> From: me@hostname.mail-host-address-is-not-set > >> --text follows this line-- > >> Mike Gran writes: > >> > >> [..] > >> > >> Notice that the subject is pretty weird, and for some reason there is a control > >> server in the CC list. I do not know if this is expected (well, at least I did > >> not expect it), but it at the very least does not seem to be documented. Based > >> on my reading of the C-h k S v I would have expected just the "Mike Gran > >> writes:" change. > > > > Zhanks for the report, I could reproduce it. However, it doesn't seem to > > be a Debbugs bug, but rather a Gnus bug. I've reproduced it by using > > Gnus w/o Debbugs. > > > > For this, I've started a new Emacs instance w/o debbugs. I've opened > > Gnus, and browsed the gmane server {nntp:news.gmane.io} for the group > > gmane.lisp.guile.bugs. Message 10682 is the one you've mentioned above. > > > > Typing in the Summary buffer 'C-u S v' shows the error. > > > > I'm therefore changing the subject, adding Eric Abrahamsen into Cc. > > I can't reproduce this exact result, but I can get buggy behavior -- in > my case it pulls in the subject of the *next* message in my Summary > buffer, in my case for bug #68506. Actually it seems to do a little > something different every time, also depending on whether I have things > edebugged or not. Fun! It is interesting you cannot reproduce it exactly. Now I see I forgot to state an Emacs version (sorry!), I am using 29.1 release. But based on your description this sounds indeed like a fun bug. > > I suspect the prefix argument is being interpreted wrong somehow. I > wouldn't be surprised if Tomas's subject line looks like that because > '(4) is resulting in four copies of the subject. I just tried M-1 S v (Which I *think* should sent '(1)? Sorry, still pretty new.) and I still got it 4 times. Maybe the number of repetitions is due to there being 4 messages above this one in the thread? Just guessing. > > Tomas, would you first confirm that running "S V" > (gnus-summary-very-wide-reply-with-original) behaves correctly? > Essentially that's supposed to do exactly what "C-u S v" does, and it > works correctly for me, which is part of why I think it's a prefix > argument problem. I don't even know why we have all these variants. Yes, I can confirm that S V works as expected. Let me know if there is anything else I should test. Thank you for looking into this and have a nice day, Tomas Volf -- There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.