[Top][All Lists]

[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.


> 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 !"


>      '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

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)))
+(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'
+(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."
    (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)
   (let* ((id (or (debbugs-gnu-current-id t)
@@ -1585,11 +1599,14 @@ removed instead."
                (format "tags %d%s %s\n"
                        id (if reverse " -" "")
-      (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).

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]