bug#9831: cause of bug found! [PATCH]

[martin rudalics]

>     Sorry, more background.  The bug OP and I am reporting is as
> follows: we have two Rmail buffers, say A and B, each with summary
> buffers.  However, only A and it's summary are displayed in windows.  We
> then output the current message from A to B via 'o'.  The bug is that at
> this point the summary for B becomes displayed when it should not.

I'm probably too silly to understand.  John was talking about "o" not
doing the right thing, but IIUC "o" calls `rmail-output' and not
`rmail-summary-output' in his case.  At least that's what I deduct from
his "When reading mail o writes the message to another file, or buffer
if it is loaded" and the doc-string of `rmail-output' saying "Append
this message to mail file FILE-NAME".  Then John says that "It also
changes to that buffer and this seriously interferes with work flow, as
it is inconsistent with when the file is not in a buffer" but
unfortunately I don't understand what "changes to that buffer" means in
this context.

Moreover, John was saying that "This seems fairly recent behaviour and
is causing significant problems" but I don't find any recent reference
to a change of `rmail-summary' in the Logs.  Finally, John nowhere
talked about point moving to some inconvenient position.  John could you
please clarify these issues?

>     Why?  The filing code updates the summary for the buffer the
> messages being filed to (e.g., B) so that it shows the message just
> added to that buffer if appropriate.  This should not cause that summary
> to be displayed but it does due to the bug.
>
>     Why?  The summary is updated via (rmail-update-summary).
> Historically, this does not cause the updated buffer to be displayed,

Can you tell me when and where this was changed?

> but because of the bug if this summary was produced by rmail-summary, it
> will be displayed.
>
>     Why? rmail-update-summary makes a saved function call (depending on
> the filtering requested, a different call is necessary to rebuild the
> summary) to update the summary.  If the summary was originally created via
> rmail-summary, then the saved call is (rmail-summary), which because of
> the bug displays the summary.
>
>     Why?  Because someone incorrectly added code to display the summary
> buffer on summary update to rmail-summary.

According to our Logs `rmail-update-summary' hasn't been changed for
many years.

>     I changed the code so that rmail-summary when called by the user
> (e.g., via 'h') does always display the summary but does not do so when
> called via rmail-update-summary.
>
>     Is this more clear?  I think the part you were unclear about is that
> there are two Rmail buffers involved, each with their own summary.

I still suppose your's is a different bug.  But I suspect that any of
these bugs may have its cause in a recent change of the buffer display
routines.  Unfortunately, I'm not of much help here since I don't use
rmail.

martin