From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Windows 64 port Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 21:42:49 -0800 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <4F51AF59.3000100@cs.ucla.edu> References: <20120219211800.0000558f@unknown> <834numv7js.fsf@gnu.org> <83ty2ltep0.fsf@gnu.org> <4F4EEBC2.5070704@cs.ucla.edu> <4F4F3A1A.4020808@cs.ucla.edu> <83ty27bbmn.fsf@gnu.org> <4F512F1A.7080806@cs.ucla.edu> <83k432bqu7.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1330753379 649 80.91.229.3 (3 Mar 2012 05:42:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 05:42:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: fabrice.popineau@supelec.fr, emacs-devel@gnu.org, ajmr@ilovetortilladepatatas.com To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 03 06:42:58 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1S3hk9-0002O9-Rn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Mar 2012 06:42:57 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48151 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S3hk9-0005kQ-24 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Mar 2012 00:42:57 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:51366) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S3hk6-0005kJ-IT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Mar 2012 00:42:55 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S3hk5-0001Jb-34 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Mar 2012 00:42:54 -0500 Original-Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.62]:46409) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S3hk1-0001JJ-Pe; Sat, 03 Mar 2012 00:42:49 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0AF9A6000D; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 21:42:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GkDzRR3yuSgc; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 21:42:45 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.10] (pool-71-189-109-235.lsanca.fios.verizon.net [71.189.109.235]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2AF66A6000B; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 21:42:45 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 In-Reply-To: <83k432bqu7.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 131.179.128.62 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:148879 Archived-At: >> My primary objection to the change has always been maintainability >> and cleanness; any extra instructions are in the noise. > Then why did you bring up that argument in the first place? Because it seemed like a valid argument. It was only one line in my twenty-line email, and that was the fourth email I sent about that particular change, and all these emails focused on my main concern, which was keeping the Windows 64 changes simple and maintainable. Unfortunately these concerns didn't seem to be persuading you, so naturally I cast about for other arguments. But performance was never my main point, and still isn't. Since then, Fabrice and I seem to have come to a consensus that much of the mainline part of the patch isn't needed for Windows 64 and can be considered separately, so there's no real technical controversy here. > The way I see it, Fabrice is trying > to contribute, and you discourage him on false pretenses. A good way to react to a critical and honest code review is to thank the reviewer, make changes that seem warranted, and move on, which is what Fabrice is doing. This is standard practice in software engineering. Unsupported and incorrect accusations of bad faith are not helpful in this process, as they tend to discourage people from reviewing and thereby improving the code.