bug#470: marked as done (pgg-gpg.el - pgg-gpg-process-region timing problem)

[Emacs bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 02 Aug 2008 15:08:30 -0400
with message-id <873aln2q1d.fsf@stupidchicken.com>
and subject line Re: pgg-gpg.el - pgg-gpg-process-region timing problem
has caused the Emacs bug report #465,
regarding pgg-gpg.el - pgg-gpg-process-region timing problem
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact don@donarmstrong.com
immediately.)


-- 
465: http://emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=465
Emacs Bug Tracking System
Contact don@donarmstrong.com with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: pgg-gpg.el - pgg-gpg-process-region timing problem
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:17:51 +0200
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux)
>
>
>
>
> () "ken manheimer" <ken.manheimer@gmail.com>
> () Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:37:11 -0400
>
>    pggprob-patch.txt, with a single-line modification to
>    pgg-gpg-process-region to work around the problem.  both
>    are attached.  since the workaround is merely a timing
>    delay, it's clearly not a fix!
>
> Please find below an UNTESTED patch that addresses the
> problem in two ways:
>  - use a downward funarg sentinel for complete monitoring
>  - reduce unnecessary data motion
>
> Does it give good results?
>
> (Authors added to cc.)
>
> thi
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: pgg-gpg.el - pgg-gpg-process-region timing problem
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Sat, 02 Aug 2008 15:08:30 -0400
>
>
>
>
> I've checked in a fix for this (verified by Ken Manheimer via private
> email).  This fix is in pgg-gpg.el, which I think was calling
> accept-process-output in a slightly incorrect way.
>
>
> --- End Message ---