> So instead of a new send-emacs-patch function, should we simply make it an
> alias for report-emacs-bug.
No, the new function would not snarf the Emacs environment, and it would
have a different text. So it'd be a completely different function.
That's what I thought too, and so had also proposed the alternative:
> Instead of a new function, rename report-emacs-bug to non-interactive function report-emacs that accepts arguments like 'bug, 'feature or 'patch. Then based on the argument, we can have different wording in the email body, choose to dump the user's emacs state containing variables, last executed commands, etc.
> Then we have wrapper interactive functions like report-emacs-bug, request-emacs-feature and send-emacs-patch that calls that same base function with different arguments.