From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#7494: 24.0.50; Why is `prefix-region' in a library by itself? Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 09:20:54 -0500 Message-ID: References: <5CD13207D93D40739A6E3AB9B3733186@us.oracle.com> <831v676vdl.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1290869103 20471 80.91.229.12 (27 Nov 2010 14:45:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:45:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 7494@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 27 15:44:59 2010 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 1PMM1L-0008D3-CX for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:44:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44683 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PMM1K-0000mj-Qb for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 09:44:58 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45578 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PMM1E-0000m3-3K for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 09:44:53 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PMM1C-0008NC-T4 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 09:44:51 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:52043) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PMM1C-0008N5-Oi for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 09:44:50 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PMLZK-0007qj-HT; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 09:16:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:16:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 7494 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 7494-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B7494.129086733130135 (code B ref 7494); Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:16:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 7494) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Nov 2010 14:15:31 +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 1PMLYp-0007q0-3F for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 09:15:31 -0500 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PMLYn-0007pj-F6 for 7494@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 09:15:30 -0500 Original-Received: from pastel.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id oAREKtSc032359; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 09:20:56 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 94845A871D; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 09:20:54 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <831v676vdl.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 27 Nov 2010 10:09:10 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV3691=0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 09:16:02 -0500 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:41926 Archived-At: >> You are certainly very quick when it doesn't count. ;-) > It's unfair to post such comments. Well, when compared to some of my backlog where I still have posts more than 2 years old, it's probably not that unfair. > The time it takes to respond to a bug report depends on any number of > factors, including (but not limited to) the maintainer's understanding > of the Emacs area where the bug happens, the time it takes to > reproduce the problem, the amount of free time (holidays etc.), you > name it. In this case, I'm guessing that it took about a few seconds > to find out that there's no such code anywhere in Emacs. Indeed, it was an easy one. Stefan