David Kastrup | 3 Oct 15:03 2007
Picon
Picon

Re: [AUCTeX-diffs] Changes to auctex/font-latex.el, v

Ralf Angeli <angeli <at> caeruleus.net> writes:

> CVSROOT:	/cvsroot/auctex
> Module name:	auctex
> Changes by:	Ralf Angeli <angeli>	07/10/03 12:20:52

Thanks for addressing this.  As a sort of clarification on my previous
mails, I would like to point out how this is might be done somewhat
more naturally (possibly addressing your point of not wanting to bog
down the doc strings with additional material).

> +There are three alternatives for the class type:
> +
> +\"Command with arguments\" (symbol: 'command) comprises commands
> +with the syntax \"\\foo[bar]{baz}\".  The mandatory arguments in
> +curly braces will get the face you specified.

I'd use

A value of `command' indicates commands with arguments
(\"\\foo[bar]{baz}\").  The mandatory arguments in curly braces will
get the face you specified.

A value of `declaration' stands for declarations inside a TeX group
(\"{\\foo bar}\").  The content inside the braces, excluding the
command will get the face you specified.  In case the braces are
missing, the face will be applied to the command itself.

> +\"Command without arguments\" (symbol: 'noarg) comprises commands
> +with the syntax \"\\foo\".  The command itself will get the face
(Continue reading)

Ralf Angeli | 3 Oct 15:40 2007
Picon

Doc strings and Customize (was: Re: [AUCTeX-diffs] Changes to auctex/font-latex.el, v)

* David Kastrup (2007-10-03) writes:

> In short: there is no necessity to have the exact same wording and
> spelling of the customization options in the DOC string: the DOC
> string should have a natural flow of words even when not looking at
> the customization options, and fit the grammar and spelling (so quite
> often, the customization option will be in singular, and the
> description in plural).  Of course, one will basically use the same
> catch phrase and also keep the order of descriptions and options
> strictly the same.

But then you are running at risk that the user is not able to make the
connection between a symbol and the respective choice in the
customization interface.  I seem to recall a user complaining about
something like that but maybe it's just my mind playing tricks on me.
Perhaps we should repeat symbol names in tags.  If such connections are
made on the Customize side, they don't pollute the doc string which is
used elsewhere as well.

--

-- 
Ralf
David Kastrup | 4 Oct 00:25 2007
Picon
Picon

Re: Doc strings and Customize

Ralf Angeli <angeli <at> caeruleus.net> writes:

> * David Kastrup (2007-10-03) writes:
>
>> In short: there is no necessity to have the exact same wording and
>> spelling of the customization options in the DOC string: the DOC
>> string should have a natural flow of words even when not looking at
>> the customization options, and fit the grammar and spelling (so
>> quite often, the customization option will be in singular, and the
>> description in plural).  Of course, one will basically use the same
>> catch phrase and also keep the order of descriptions and options
>> strictly the same.
>
> But then you are running at risk that the user is not able to make
> the connection between a symbol and the respective choice in the
> customization interface.

Well, the changes should just be enough to fit nicely into their
environment.  There are probably no really good rules for everything:
writing documentation remains an art.

> I seem to recall a user complaining about something like that but
> maybe it's just my mind playing tricks on me.

It is much easier for us to get a user to complain rather than a
developer.  It is probably hopeless to make all users satisfied with
all of AUCTeX.

> Perhaps we should repeat symbol names in tags.

(Continue reading)

Ralf Angeli | 16 Oct 23:28 2007
Picon

Re: Spam on AUCTeX CVS mailing lists

* Reiner Steib (2007-07-21) writes:

> On Sun, Jan 07 2007, Reiner Steib wrote:
>
>> With regards to spam: Is it possible to setup a simple white list
>> filter based on From (only include developers) or Subject ("^Changes
>> to auctex/", "^auctex/")?
>
> I think we should do something about this.  I looked at the 100 most
> recent articles in <nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.auctex.diffs>.
> Only 24 articles are ham.

Yes, this is really getting annoying.  I wonder why anybody except
Savannah may send messages to these lists anyway.

--

-- 
Ralf
David Kastrup | 17 Oct 08:14 2007
Picon
Picon

Re: Spam on AUCTeX CVS mailing lists

Ralf Angeli <angeli <at> caeruleus.net> writes:

> * Reiner Steib (2007-07-21) writes:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 07 2007, Reiner Steib wrote:
>>
>>> With regards to spam: Is it possible to setup a simple white list
>>> filter based on From (only include developers) or Subject ("^Changes
>>> to auctex/", "^auctex/")?
>>
>> I think we should do something about this.  I looked at the 100 most
>> recent articles in <nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.auctex.diffs>.
>> Only 24 articles are ham.
>
> Yes, this is really getting annoying.  I wonder why anybody except
> Savannah may send messages to these lists anyway.

The sender addresses are the patch authors.  I tried some moderation
expressions once, and you were less than enthused by the results.

--

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Ralf Angeli | 17 Oct 18:50 2007
Picon

Re: Spam on AUCTeX CVS mailing lists

* David Kastrup (2007-10-17) writes:

> Ralf Angeli <angeli <at> caeruleus.net> writes:
>
>> Yes, this is really getting annoying.  I wonder why anybody except
>> Savannah may send messages to these lists anyway.
>
> The sender addresses are the patch authors.

You mean the Sender header is faked?  Or the Envelope-To?  I only see
messages to these lists on Gmane, so I am not sure if I can check this.

> I tried some moderation
> expressions once, and you were less than enthused by the results.

Sorry, but I don't recall what the expressions and the results were.

--

-- 
Ralf
David Kastrup | 17 Oct 18:56 2007
Picon
Picon

Re: Spam on AUCTeX CVS mailing lists

Ralf Angeli <angeli <at> caeruleus.net> writes:

> * David Kastrup (2007-10-17) writes:
>
>> Ralf Angeli <angeli <at> caeruleus.net> writes:
>>
>>> Yes, this is really getting annoying.  I wonder why anybody except
>>> Savannah may send messages to these lists anyway.
>>
>> The sender addresses are the patch authors.
>
> You mean the Sender header is faked?  Or the Envelope-To?  I only see
> messages to these lists on Gmane, so I am not sure if I can check this.
>
>> I tried some moderation
>> expressions once, and you were less than enthused by the results.
>
> Sorry, but I don't recall what the expressions and the results were.

The results were that you got moderation messages for all your CVS
checkins and that you were pretty annoyed.  If you want to try your
hand at some other settings, go ahead.  It would probably also be
possible to use a combination of automoderation and whitelisting, but
that also means that the amount of mail I need to check for
potentially kept messages will increase manyfold again.

--

-- 
David Kastrup
Reiner Steib | 17 Oct 21:03 2007
X-Face

Re: Spam on AUCTeX CVS mailing lists

On Wed, Oct 17 2007, David Kastrup wrote:

> The results were that you got moderation messages for all your CVS
> checkins and that you were pretty annoyed.  

It should be possible to set the lists to subscribers-only and that
the few committers subscribe to the lists with mail delivery turned
off.  The problem the would only be that you'd get moderation messages
for every spam, right?  Couldn't you just drop (e.g. using procmail)
these moderation unless...

- Message-ID's domain name is cvs.savannah.gnu.org
- Subject matches "^(auctex|reftex)[ /]"

Bye, Reiner.
--

-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/
David Kastrup | 17 Oct 23:32 2007
Picon
Picon

Re: [AUCTeX-diffs] Changes to auctex/context.el,v

Berend de Boer <berend <at> pobox.com> writes:

> CVSROOT:	/cvsroot/auctex
> Module name:	auctex
> Changes by:	Berend de Boer <berenddeboer>	07/10/16 22:50:38
>
> Index: context.el
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvsroot/auctex/auctex/context.el,v
> retrieving revision 1.62
> retrieving revision 1.63
> diff -u -b -r1.62 -r1.63
> --- context.el	24 Mar 2007 22:51:27 -0000	1.62
> +++ context.el	16 Oct 2007 22:50:38 -0000	1.63
>  <at>  <at>  -476,7 +476,7  <at>  <at> 
>  	 (setq TeX-command-next TeX-command-default))
>  	((re-search-forward "removed files :" nil t)
>  	 (message "sucessfully cleaned up"))
> -	((re-search-forward "^ ?TeX\\(Exec\\|Util\\)" nil t) ;; strange regexp --pg
> +	((re-search-forward "^[ ]?TeX\\(Exec\\|Util\\)" nil t) ;; strange regexp --pg

Huh?  The commit message says "make whitespace optional", but the
optionality is not affected by using a character range.

What gives?

--

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Berend de Boer | 17 Oct 23:31 2007
Face
Picon

Re: [AUCTeX-diffs] Changes to auctex/context.el,v


>>>>> "David" == David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org> writes:

    David> Huh?  The commit message says "make whitespace optional",
    David> but the optionality is not affected by using a character
    David> range.

    David> What gives?

Mistake, too hurried. Synced auctex and got some merge warning and
committed the wrong line. Fixed now.

--

-- 
Cheers,

Berend de Boer

PS: This email has been digitally signed if you wonder what the strange
characters are that your email client displays.
PGP public key: http://www.pobox.com/~berend/berend-public-key.txt

Gmane