[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Processed: control message for bug #33200
From: |
Garreau\, Alexandre |
Subject: |
Re: Processed: control message for bug #33200 |
Date: |
Thu, 01 Nov 2018 06:13:56 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus (5.13), GNU Emacs 25.1.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.22.11) of 2017-09-15, modified by Debian |
On 2018/10/31 at 20:49, Michael Albinus wrote:
> Noam Postavsky <address@hidden> writes:
>>> and I ended the bug “owner” (I’m learning so I still don’t even
>>> know what does that mean ^^' (is this reversible without intending
>>> unintended meaning such as “I don’t want to help with this bug” (while
>>> I’d like to, but amn’t aware of how exactely)?)).
>>
>> I don't think anybody really uses "owner" much, so it de facto hardly
>> means anything.
>
> If you are using debbugs.el, it might be helpful to read its user
> guide. Try (info "(debbugs-ug)")
It really ought to have an index.
> I heartly invite you to check the debbugs.el user guide, and to report
> whatever you believe shall be fixed there. And of course, you could ask
> further questions.
Hence:
> The attribute "owner" is intended to document, who is responsible for
> fixing a bug. Usually, you tag a bug with it in order to tell other
> people that you are working on the bug. However, in the Emacs community
> this is used rarely.
This is a neat, unambiguous and formal definition. Why isn’t it in the
aforementioned manual? Manual only says:
> 'noowner'
> 'notforwarded'
> "noowner|notforwarded 12345"
>
> 'owner'
> "owner 12345 !"
and
> 'owner'
> 'submitter'
> 'maint'
> 'correspondent'
> The email address of the bug's owner, submitter, maintainer,
> or correspondent (somebody who has participated in bug
> messages).
This is confusing, so I guess the parenthesis is only about
“correspondent”, not “owner, submitter, maintainer” (which then have no
definition).
If it was defined in the manual it could be in the index. Then, a
potential confirmation prompt feature might offer as a third choice to
visit the appropriated manual place to help users confirm the meaning of
what they’re doing.
>> Yeah, I have in my .emacs.d an alternate function which just adds the
>> control commands to an email, so that the user can review before
>> sending. I will see about adding it to debbugs.el.
>
> Patches welcome!
Okay let’s try:
diff --git a/packages/debbugs/debbugs-gnu.el b/packages/debbugs/debbugs-gnu.el
index 5466d6518..ea61e96bb 100644
--- a/packages/debbugs/debbugs-gnu.el
+++ b/packages/debbugs/debbugs-gnu.el
@@ -1462,6 +1462,32 @@ returned by `debbugs-gnu-bugs'."
(number-sequence (string-to-number from) (string-to-number to)))
result))))))))
+(defconst debbugs-gnu-control-messages
+ '("serious" "important" "normal" "minor" "wishlist"
+ "done" "donenotabug" "donewontfix" "doneunreproducible"
+ "unarchive" "unmerge" "reopen" "close"
+ "merge" "forcemerge"
+ "block" "unblock"
+ "owner" "noowner"
+ "forwarded" "notforwarded"
+ "invalid"
+ "reassign"
+ "retitle"
+ "patch" "wontfix" "moreinfo" "unreproducible" "fixed" "notabug"
+ "pending" "help" "security" "confirmed" "easy"
+ "usertag")
+ "List of control messages accepted by Debbugs.
+All are accepted and processed by `debbugs-gnu-send-control-message'
+accordingly.")
+
+(defcustom debbugs-gnu-confirm-control-messages '("owner")
+ "List of control messages asking for confirmation.
+Each message listed will make `debbugs-gnu-send-control-message'
+ask for confirmation before sending control message mail."
+ :type (cons 'set (mapcar (apply-partially #'list 'const)
+ debbugs-gnu-control-messages))
+ :group 'debbugs-gnu)
+
(defun debbugs-gnu-send-control-message (message &optional reverse)
"Send a control message for the current bug report.
You can set the severity or add a tag, or close the report. If
@@ -1473,19 +1499,7 @@ removed instead."
(interactive
(list (completing-read
"Control message: "
- '("serious" "important" "normal" "minor" "wishlist"
- "done" "donenotabug" "donewontfix" "doneunreproducible"
- "unarchive" "unmerge" "reopen" "close"
- "merge" "forcemerge"
- "block" "unblock"
- "owner" "noowner"
- "forwarded" "notforwarded"
- "invalid"
- "reassign"
- "retitle"
- "patch" "wontfix" "moreinfo" "unreproducible" "fixed" "notabug"
- "pending" "help" "security" "confirmed" "easy"
- "usertag")
+ debbugs-gnu-control-messages
nil t)
current-prefix-arg))
(let* ((id (or (debbugs-gnu-current-id t)
@@ -1585,11 +1599,14 @@ removed instead."
(format "tags %d%s %s\n"
id (if reverse " -" "")
message))))
- (funcall (or debbugs-gnu-send-mail-function send-mail-function))
- (remhash id debbugs-cache-data)
- (message-goto-body)
- (message "Control message sent:\n%s"
- (buffer-substring-no-properties (point) (1- (point-max)))))))
+ (unless (and (member message debbugs-gnu-confirm-control-messages)
+ (not (y-or-n-p (format "Really send `%s' control message? "
+ message))))
+ (funcall (or debbugs-gnu-send-mail-function send-mail-function))
+ (remhash id debbugs-cache-data)
+ (message-goto-body)
+ (message "Control message sent:\n%s"
+ (buffer-substring-no-properties (point) (1- (point-max))))))))
(defvar debbugs-gnu-usertags-mode-map
(let ((map (make-sparse-keymap)))
Would that be okay? just to know, so I learn if then I report a real bug
(or, since it’s more an improvement wishlist, maybe doesn’t it need to
be reported as a bug?).
As for manual, I’m unsure of the purpose and meanings of “submitter”,
“maint”, etc. to complete it, I still don’t know yet enough of texinfo
to be sure. how to make an index, how to go to that index from outside
of info, etc.
> Usually, you tag a bug with it in order to tell other people that you
> are working on the bug. However, in the Emacs community this is used
> rarely.
So, I tried to propose a patch (to gnus), this was my first attempt. So
I’d like to “work on it” if I can, but I don’t want to indicate I’m
knowledgeful enough to fully and surely be able to do it all alone:
should I stay “owner”? if I “noowner”, am I not (falsely) indicating I
am not willing to “work on it” anymore?
> Bug reports about the debbugs ELPA package shall go to Emacs, "M-x
> report-emacs-bug" as usual.
No really? aren’t elpa package maintained on their own? I was
discussing publicly (but on the wrong list) then privately with some
other german Michael about his elpa package (el-search) and in the end
he stated private discussion was going to be the more appropriate so not
to spam emacs-devel and as the package wasn’t used enough. I don’t want
to spam neither as I am (evidently and unfortunately) a very verbose
person (frustrated with “most meaningful threading usage and handling”),
though I’m concerned sometimes in a thread some question might arise
that may relevantly require to ask on emacs-devel what to do in a such
case (which might ask an additional mail + context).
- Re: Processed: control message for bug #33200,
Garreau\, Alexandre <=
- Re: Processed: control message for bug #33200, Michael Albinus, 2018/11/01
- Re: Processed: control message for bug #33200, Michael Albinus, 2018/11/01
- Re: Processed: control message for bug #33200, Garreau\, Alexandre, 2018/11/01
- Re: Processed: control message for bug #33200, Michael Albinus, 2018/11/02
- Re: Processed: control message for bug #33200, Garreau\, Alexandre, 2018/11/04
- Re: Processed: control message for bug #33200, Michael Albinus, 2018/11/05
Re: Processed: control message for bug #33200, Garreau\, Alexandre, 2018/11/01