On 15/05/2014 17:06, Russ Allbery wrote: > Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> writes: > >> For this concrete case, might I suggest following course of action: > >> 1. ping all submitters of emacs21 (and related) bugs to test against >> recent emacs (at a minimum emacs23 from wheezy) and deal with the bug as >> needed >> 2. if no response within a reasonable amount of time (3 months?) >> mass-close them > >> According to my script this applies to 162 bugs, of which some are in >> the 5 (five) digit range and only 1 (one) bug number is higher than >> 500000. List attached. > > If everyone reading this who uses Emacs (probably a lot of people!) takes > a moment to do a bit of triage on the list you posted (thank you!), we > could make most of this go away, actually. I started doing that since I > was curious how easy it would be and was able to resolve five or six bugs > as previously fixed in just a few minutes. > > I'll do a bit more of that this morning before I have to go do other work. > Completely at random, I tested this one: • #128748 [w| | ] [emacs21] emacs21: M-x word-count (from xemacs) is missing? It happens that this one is solved in emacs24, not in emacs23. What should be done: reassign to emacs23 (which obviously will never fix it), or just close it? Sincerely, -- Jean-Christophe Dubacq
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature