From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/80306 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tim Cross Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: smtp crap Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:21:41 +1100 Message-ID: References: <8739f4kzp3.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87ipo0p1bc.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <58C87CB9F44943A7BBE78F2D6B62A850@us.oracle.com> <83botsf06d.fsf@gnu.org> <83k48cxj85.fsf@gnu.org> <20FFD44DE7DF42C78FDDA3EF06397A78@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1318368117 12470 80.91.229.12 (11 Oct 2011 21:21:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:21:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: cyd@stupidchicken.com, ding@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , PJ Weisberg , larsi@gnus.org, Eli Zaretskii , miles@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 11 23:21:51 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1RDjln-0004U8-2y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 23:21:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39040 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDjlm-0000FD-Ko for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:21:50 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:40552) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDjlj-0000F6-E0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:21:48 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDjli-0006Qg-7j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:21:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-iy0-f169.google.com ([209.85.210.169]:50984) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDjlf-0006PY-18; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:21:43 -0400 Original-Received: by iaen33 with SMTP id n33so34768iae.0 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:21:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=k3y7WL5EtyINyeooACvt9kc1GO3drY1CCJF5f/EPxXo=; b=IrrhDwI5ALxGFPUJN6QDKq65LH5qoEAMZ4KxRreW/eeNUR/3Ik39YwIXda+5twUqt/ LdQXS0LT/3kvK+Ukq+BpaPsDOugwXzJiPo/XejQWpo8lZqOHoa2r9sl+6BmxeCRscKVm iNdIeT9vW+NUFcYsK0qFlZhAbhj6CwXvOE3nU= Original-Received: by 10.231.50.202 with SMTP id a10mr11888560ibg.39.1318368101467; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:21:41 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.231.12.67 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:21:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20FFD44DE7DF42C78FDDA3EF06397A78@us.oracle.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.210.169 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:144915 gmane.emacs.gnus.general:80306 Archived-At: On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Drew Adams wrote: >> > But MOST importantly, what about reporting bugs with `emacs -Q'? >> > >> > That is the real problem here, and the one that you keep >> > ignoring. =A0Instead, you keep focusing on the problem of >> > customization, which is, relatively speaking, no big deal >> > (assuming you finish fixing the repeated-interrogation bugs). >> >> No, that's not the real problem. > > To me it is. =A0It is a more important problem than how to help users con= figure > Emacs to use email. > >> There are two problems: >> (1) What should Emacs do when the user asks it to send an email? >> (2) What should Emacs do when the user asks it to report a bug? > > Agreed. > >> This series of questions is appropriate in scenario 1, but not in >> scenario 2. > > I would say that _some email configuration UI_ is appropriate for #1, but= not > for #2. > > But "some config UI" does not imply "this series of questions". > > I don't really care too much (personally) about what UI is used for #1. = =A0But > (FWIW) my advice would be for Emacs to (a) not _initiate_ that UI but onl= y > provide it upon _user request_ and (b) probably not offer it as a sequenc= e of > questions (e.g. wizard) at all, but rather as a form (e.g. checkboxes) to= fill > in. =A0Look at how other apps help users configure email, for some inspir= ation... > >> (Especially with `emacs -Q', which causes an already-configured >> Emacs to explicitly ignore its configuration.) > > Exactly. =A0This is important. =A0It should be the starting point. > > The fact that the UI interrogation-sequence-from-hell was (initially) com= pletely > backward (see the bugs, some of which have been fixed), and that it is st= ill, > well, weird, reflects the fact that this was NOT the starting point, even= though > the configuration dialog is initiated by the `report-emacs-bug' code. > >> The fact that the two scenarios are related is an implementation >> detail of report-emacs-bug. > > It might be currently, but it should not be. > >> The argument Drew is making would disappear instantly if >> report-emacs-bug sent an HTTP POST request, for instance. > > Yes. =A0But in that case Drew would argue that we should still also let u= sers > report bugs using email. =A0On this I support Richard's stance: users sho= uld be > able to report bugs using email. =A0AND they should be able to do so usin= g HTTP. > > We should make it as easy as possible for a user to report an Emacs bug, > especially using `emacs -Q'. =A0That should be the priority - the rest is > secondary, IMHO. =A0And yes, this _should_ be a no-brainer. > > > > Totally agree - address the issue of bug reporting and most of this kludgy mess goes away. and please, DO NOT jump through all sorts of hoops with -Q to enable 'special' configuration settings to exist - the whole idea of -Q is that it is a base, well known and repeatable configuration. Once you start making exceptions that whole premise is lost. Using -Q should allow me to have exactly the same configuration as someone else who also runs -Q - it should not be 'the same configuration except for ....' If this means that users cannot submit bugs using emacs as their MUA when running -Q it does not mean we need to hack at custom or make exceptions - it means that email is not the right solution for submitting bug messages when running under -Q. By all means, allow it for other contexts, even make it the default for people who do configure emacs as their MUA, but not when running under -Q and not for those who do not configure emacs as a their MUA. Tim --=20 Tim Cross