Re: Wrong use of "path" in spam.el

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On 27 Dec 2006, reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc wrote:

On Wed, Dec 27 2006, Ted Zlatanov wrote: 
> On 26 Dec 2006, reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc wrote:
>>> [...] `spam-*-path' variables and doc strings.  We should rename
>>> those variables to `spam-*-program' and mark the former as obsolete.
>>>
>>> I'm not 100% sure that it's a good idea to do this now (while Emacs 22
>>> is in pretest), but OTOH spam.el was not part of Emacs 21 so it's
>>> probably better to do it now so that Emacs 22 will have the right
>>> names.  Opinions?
>>
>> I'm OK with that.  Since the old variable names will work today, I
>> expect the support issues to be minimal.  
>
> Maybe we should better use `defvaralias' instead of
> `make-obsolete-variable'?  I wasn't sure which one is more suitable
> here.

I'm OK with either; I don't know the right one though.

>> But the manual will also have to be updated,
>
> AFAICS, it's only the following change (installed in v5-10):
> --- gnus.texi	26 Dec 2006 19:10:32 +0100	6.603.2.107
> +++ gnus.texi	27 Dec 2006 17:38:39 +0100	
> @@ -23952,7 +23952,7 @@
> the default value of @samp{spam}.
> @end defvar
>
> -@defvar spam-ifile-database-path
> +@defvar spam-ifile-database
>
> This is the filename for the ifile database.  It is not specified by
> default, so ifile will use its own default database name.

OK, I thought there were more.  Sorry.

>> and we need to check with the Emacs maintainers regarding the 22
>> prerelease.
>
> The changes will automatically be included in the next pretest after
> Miles next sync.  Do you have something else in mind?

That was all, I didn't know if we need to ask before making such
changes since they are not really bug fixes.

Ted