Re: recent changes to org files

[Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com>]

On Oct 23, 2007, at 12:08 PM, David Kastrup wrote:

> Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> To me the rule goes as follows: I only install patches, not files.
>>> That usually takes core of those problems: if the author's version
>>> disagrees with the CVS version I get a conflict when I try to apply
>>> the patch.
>>
>>
>> To me it works like this: My copy is the master copy, not the one in
>> Emacs.  The best setup for me would be to get email notifications,
>> maybe with a patch, whenever some Emacs developer touches my files
>> in Emacs.  Then I can decide if I agree with these changes and
>> incorporate the accepted part into my master copy.
>
> But this does not change that any changes by Emacs developers to the
> copy in Emacs have been put there in the course of Emacs development
> and with the usual amount of peer review for patches.  It is certainly
> your choice to accept those patches (or not) into your master copy.
> However, that does not mean that this decision should result in
> clobbering the changes in the Emacs copy.


Agreed.  However, it is annoying if changes are made without  
consultation.
Sure, I don't care if that happens for Capitalization of the word  
"Copyright".
But replacing, for example `next-line' by `forward-line' in an  
outline-like mode
is a bug, and such changes should be run by the maintainer who knows the
code well.  Things like this have happened to me in the past, again  
recently.
I don't have the time to spend my days on emacs-devel, my energy goes  
into
making org-mode as good as I can.  The version of org-mode that is  
tested the
most is the one I distribute, and the most likely to not have any  
bugs.  That
is the one I am checking into. Emacs.  When I see changes made to org- 
mode
in Emacs I am incorporating them into my master copy if they make  
sense, and
only then.

If I would follow Stefan' advice and only check in diffs, the `next- 
line' code would
be broken now.

> It is never correct to do or undo changes in Emacs without Changelog
> entry and/or CVS log.  And dissent over the desirability of some
> change should not result in "battling commits".

I do agree, I am not battling, I am doing as good as I can and I
I sometimes slip.  But if I am the maintainer of org-mode in Emacs,  
than I and
no one else decides what goes into the mode and what not.  If people  
disagree,
and I will quit maintaining this mode inside Emacs.

> So the right solution can never be just copying over existing files
> without any attempt of merging the changes or explaining why they were
> undone.
>
> My personal recommendation would be to use the git mirror of Emacs'
> CVS.  Using gitk or a number of other git-related tools, it is dead
> easy to instantaneously view all changes done in Emacs (git keeps an
> impressively well-packed copy of the whole repository with the entire
> history locally), merge in your own changes and synchronize stuff.

Yes, if I find a few hours of free time in the next few month, I can  
start toying with
a new versioning system.  But don't hold your breath.

- Carsten