From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mark Lillibridge Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#9831: cause of bug found! [PATCH] Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:53:58 -0700 Message-ID: References: <4EA3DC2F.9040303@gmx.at> <4EA5308F.2050608@gmx.at> Reply-To: mark.lillibridge@hp.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1319684133 493 80.91.229.12 (27 Oct 2011 02:55:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 02:55:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 9831@debbugs.gnu.org, jpff@codemist.co.uk To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 27 04:55:28 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RJG7m-00070y-Ee for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 04:55:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37130 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJG7l-0003CP-K4 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:55:21 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:43311) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJG7i-0003CG-Fu for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:55:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJG7h-00063v-0O for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:55:18 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:33714) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RJG7g-00063p-V6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:55:16 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RJG9O-00088O-9l for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:57:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Mark Lillibridge Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 02:57:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9831 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 9831-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9831.131968418231214 (code B ref 9831); Thu, 27 Oct 2011 02:57:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 9831) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Oct 2011 02:56:22 +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 1RJG8k-00087P-44 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:56:22 -0400 Original-Received: from madara.hpl.hp.com ([192.6.19.124]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RJG8g-00087G-FY for 9831@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:56:19 -0400 Original-Received: from mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com (mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com [15.25.115.25]) by madara.hpl.hp.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id p9R2s1k7005663 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:54:01 -0700 Original-Received: from ts-rhel5 (ts-rhel5.hpl.hp.com [15.25.118.27]) by mailhub-pa1.hpl.hp.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/HPL-PA Hub) with ESMTP id p9R2rwko010425; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:53:58 -0700 In-reply-to: <4EA5308F.2050608@gmx.at> (message from martin rudalics on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:31:59 +0200) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 15.0.152.124 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:57:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:53185 Archived-At: > > Sorry, more background. The bug OP and I am reporting is as > > follows: we have two Rmail buffers, say A and B, each with summary > > buffers. However, only A and it's summary are displayed in windows. We > > then output the current message from A to B via 'o'. The bug is that at > > this point the summary for B becomes displayed when it should not. > > I'm probably too silly to understand. John was talking about "o" not > doing the right thing, but IIUC "o" calls `rmail-output' and not > `rmail-summary-output' in his case. At least that's what I deduct from > his "When reading mail o writes the message to another file, or buffer > if it is loaded" and the doc-string of `rmail-output' saying "Append > this message to mail file FILE-NAME". Then John says that "It also > changes to that buffer and this seriously interferes with work flow, as > it is inconsistent with when the file is not in a buffer" but > unfortunately I don't understand what "changes to that buffer" means in > this context. Yes, 'o' calls rmail-output from an Rmail buffer and rmail-summary-output from the associated summary buffer. Both suffer from the bug we are talking about. What John means by "changes to that buffer" is that his window showing rmail-buffer A changes to a *different* rmail-buffer, namely the one he was outputting the message to. Note that this buffer change does not occur when the targeted rmail file is not held in a buffer, hence John's comments about inconsistency. > > but because of the bug if this summary was produced by rmail-summary, it > > will be displayed. > > > > Why? rmail-update-summary makes a saved function call (depending on > > the filtering requested, a different call is necessary to rebuild the > > summary) to update the summary. If the summary was originally created via > > rmail-summary, then the saved call is (rmail-summary), which because of > > the bug displays the summary. > > > > Why? Because someone incorrectly added code to display the summary > > buffer on summary update to rmail-summary. > > According to our Logs `rmail-update-summary' hasn't been changed for > many years. I never said that function got changed; remember that it is an indirection function. One of the functions it can call, namely rmail-summary, has been changed since Rmail 22. I don't have convenient access to the source control system so I can't tell you when that change was made. > I still suppose your's is a different bug. But I suspect that any of > these bugs may have its cause in a recent change of the buffer display > routines. Unfortunately, I'm not of much help here since I don't use > rmail. Let's ask John if my patch makes his bug go away. It certainly makes mine go way. - Mark