From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: probable caching bug?
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 16:30:37 +0100
Message-ID: <8761r2uhcy.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <87pppcys45.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87a9gfuwns.fsf@gmail.com>
	<874n6mbuyb.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45022)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <n.goaziou@gmail.com>) id 1VoxMH-0003mM-CP
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 10:30:31 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <n.goaziou@gmail.com>) id 1VoxMB-0000YK-LA
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 10:30:25 -0500
Received: from mail-wg0-x234.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c00::234]:37548)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <n.goaziou@gmail.com>) id 1VoxMB-0000Xi-EI
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 10:30:19 -0500
Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id x13so803643wgg.19
	for <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 07:30:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <874n6mbuyb.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> (Eric Abrahamsen's message of
	"Fri, 06 Dec 2013 08:59:40 +0700")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Hello,

Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:

> Yes, it's up to date -- after I sent this message I started wondering
> if it had been a while since I updated, so I pulled and reloaded, and
> not long after that saw the bug again.

Well, too bad.

> I expect to see this again, so I can run the function above, but will
> reporting the results be of any use to you? If I know which element is
> corrupted, what should I be reporting back?

The corrupted element is only interesting when there's a pattern (e.g.
only lists and items are corrupted). Another important information is
the action triggering the corruption. The function helps to find it out.


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou