From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#48949: 28.0.50; Thread-Process Liberalization Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 13:59:51 +0300 Message-ID: <83r1h8acpk.fsf@gnu.org> References: <877dj1pict.fsf@dick> <8335tpaqvw.fsf@gnu.org> <871r98d7e3.fsf@dick> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="16893"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 48949@debbugs.gnu.org To: dick.r.chiang@gmail.com Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 11 13:01:12 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lreuW-0004Eo-2z for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 13:01:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36298 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lreuV-0001z0-5E for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 07:01:11 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36874) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lreuM-0001yq-4r for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 07:01:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:54903) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lreuL-0007Pk-QE for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 07:01:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lreuL-0006dy-MP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 07:01:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 11:01:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48949 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 48949-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48949.162340921325478 (code B ref 48949); Fri, 11 Jun 2021 11:01:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 48949) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jun 2021 11:00:13 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38216 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lretZ-0006cs-5G for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 07:00:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:38796) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lretV-0006bZ-7F for 48949@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 07:00:11 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:41420) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lretP-0006mY-JQ; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 07:00:03 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:1618 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lretP-0001vl-2a; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 07:00:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <871r98d7e3.fsf@dick> (dick.r.chiang@gmail.com) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:208344 Archived-At: > From: dick.r.chiang@gmail.com > Cc: 48949@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 06:26:28 -0400 > > Well, this response and that of #bug36609 effectively puts the kibosh on > my dream of Gnus 2.0 (a working version at github.com/dickmao/gnus I > run rather delightedly every day). It's a more-than-5000 line change thus > far, so given the vigorous pushback on what I considered to be > non-controversial changes in #bug48949 and #bug36609, it never really had a > chance. I don't understand: why being able to wait for a process that is locked to another thread is so important for what you wanted to do? And if it _is_ important, then why not unlock the process, so that its output could be processed by any thread?