From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master has switched from Automake to GNU Make Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 10:28:05 +0100 Message-ID: <58D63825.8020501@gmx.at> References: <58CB9F6B.5080806@gmx.at> <83h92sz2j9.fsf@gnu.org> <58CBAEB7.5030601@gmx.at> <58CBBC6C.8000104@gmx.at> <58D380FF.1070103@gmx.at> <58D3C84E.5080808@gmx.at> <58D4E0D6.2070101@gmx.at> <86r31mlrj1.fsf@molnjunk.nocrew.org> <58D56B33.9050408@gmx.at> <86inmyp7tf.fsf@stephe-leake.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1490434138 17386 195.159.176.226 (25 Mar 2017 09:28:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 09:28:58 +0000 (UTC) To: Stephen Leake , emacs-devel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 25 10:28:54 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cri05-0003IU-3F for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 25 Mar 2017 10:28:45 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36482 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cri0B-0004FK-4p for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 25 Mar 2017 05:28:51 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48983) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1crhzb-0004Ej-Gi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Mar 2017 05:28:16 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1crhzY-0002pG-Es for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Mar 2017 05:28:15 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]:56808) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1crhzY-0002op-4k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Mar 2017 05:28:12 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([213.162.68.58]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MIe0O-1cttqa1iDw-002Fyy; Sat, 25 Mar 2017 10:28:08 +0100 In-Reply-To: <86inmyp7tf.fsf@stephe-leake.org> X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:q6WzbCPZTKEAIlGHgZTtFT8+oenkZ95uN/7TBfTazVNDr6Pc4js wxToPGooGDyaBsrPIfwIaxrFlNgJ2hZqKyOCTUVNYsauZQdmaN11EAZRGPWB9PsCPksmuQS VzJZMybm6Gn9Ji2Bp1BTdtZcNtolE9vs8wlZTgf0VpBo1DMFI6RSTa1pOpbeJhTB9VUdycP oZcAaX3eI25aJ5VvBH2dQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:PlM4OgeuoEg=:n16zJxzrmTIhdH38g8kzDg wjo4RxRHdto2gEhU3DIF0BjV1iMabsJn7xwuDLJiqIM0kjo7MUEfPlar/MbhkRzaVJPXIzRUx SPGkuntk24xQxCvkAbHHrtIslhacYtrvLndn/vzuTiHW7wD6cLVFJhOWiZEJDpQjhlC8G00Ws f8G0IS/SFlD817iaDNRsqAS6igKe/NLpFFY5EwI55uNs2n4msCBylJgmUI+pj5aNfgzPS6OyM crSQgJSzl0O+0eDh/wVK7OQ5DXOP1rKwd0bN1BHJlbEmuvH57l4nQcv8NK1qJc7iSBR4HgHGN 4SUDJZ78i4bzGfy65zIr3uSsmDrbhG/2OZA2h59txVoEln//CZ39CmrvhrYxmt1ysmKDMCABn faDG4qzYzrLuFRS8LBqsLTbhThZPaNF4WIrdPeiyZyl+f0ETE9pdTpFRN+/tAFg/zyRx/DqG9 hkLDbH/cmSy1DTvs1SnK07RS87tIRc36hWCkNSnus68E6XByxvmQgLdWRf0Ru6wckSwjpUioB lYiucE+b9KjUCg8SVwzYv/cAE/kUaV5rEBjA8uIMdv2fEC2Z0KrnaY5MniixF4iUZf1QJDrRf OMcstkwK9d6+NYK7hhVP0H1CTAuXEd7aBMVuIu/YMWS8VATIHx05RRjB9vAnPL0gu5uHpqWas 8N5s2OEoWBzZh3UNPKrhyUPi0g9wXqnAZKAP3b1LuRhox7DuxF8KgKs0d317k53dAqKHjb4G3 vcfcwpo6RZTfridaOy5BnhOL9mVb/lBUfZE0Tx1H17jM3IS2Nv2Agz9nnbF37AyTFloRRebs X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 212.227.15.19 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:213332 Archived-At: >> My concerns were with what happens in the branch as long as it is not >> final. Why throw away its history when pushing? Because it contains >> silly code its author would be ashamed of? > > Yes, but I would phrase it "it contained a failed approach, so here's a > better approach". > > Or, "the sequence of commits is too hard to follow, since it has false > starts and back-tracking, so here's a cleaner sequence". How often I wished to see on master the dirty sequence of how someone came to the conclusion that the last version is the correct one. How often would this have prevent me from entering precisely the same false starts and back-tracking, saving me many, many hours of silly work. martin