From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Glenn Morris Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#7143: Acknowledgement (message.el user References control) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:59:59 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1286223113 4087 80.91.229.12 (4 Oct 2010 20:11:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 20:11:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 7143@debbugs.gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 04 22:11:49 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 1P2rO0-0006lR-KD for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2010 22:11:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56357 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P2rNz-0007m5-VX for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2010 16:11:48 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35622 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P2rNu-0007lh-2p for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2010 16:11:43 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P2rNt-0000Fo-Ca for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2010 16:11:42 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:34464) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P2rNt-0000Fk-9y for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2010 16:11:41 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P2r9i-0001qS-7x; Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:57:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org In-Reply-To: Resent-From: Glenn Morris Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 19:57:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 7143 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 7143-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B7143.12862222167086 (code B ref 7143); Mon, 04 Oct 2010 19:57:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 7143) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Oct 2010 19:56:56 +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 1P2r9c-0001qF-8o for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:56:56 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P2r9Z-0001qA-SV for 7143@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:56:54 -0400 Original-Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P2rCZ-0005MG-Cy; Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:59:59 -0400 X-Spook: USDOJ Honduras Leuken-Baden TELINT CESID government top X-Ran: <(Qi(EO#gQhXrd~PwoeySeH]?ey@V<`qD#;w=pGu^myF4(OMZ}MdUO&a"=^MFfNic~_z;2 X-Hue: white X-Attribution: GM User-Agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:57:02 -0400 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:40698 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier wrote: > Can we have a rule that an email with "Re:" won't create a new bug? I do not know how to implement that, and I imagine it would be wrong more often than right. Eg discussing something on emacs-devel, someone says file that as a bug, someone cc's bug-gnu-emacs on a reply to do just that. (I already fixed it so that messages in reply-to existing reports but without the appropriate subject or to address are appended to those reports rather than creating new bugs, based on the References and In-Reply-To headers.) It's not like replying to messages > 2 years old is common. I plan to just delete this bug from the database in a week or so.