From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eli Zaretskii" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Coordinating patches [was Re: Change in compile.el] Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:43:42 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <7137-Tue17Feb2004214342+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> References: Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1077047259 15229 80.91.224.253 (17 Feb 2004 19:47:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 19:47:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 17 20:47:31 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AtBBr-0001KW-00 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:47:31 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AtBBr-0007w3-00 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:47:31 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AtBB7-0003uf-AF for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:46:45 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AtBAV-0003mi-46 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:46:07 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AtB98-0002x1-7c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:45:23 -0500 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.18] (helo=bilbo.inter.net.il) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AtB86-0001l3-IM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:43:38 -0500 Original-Received: from zaretski ([80.230.153.239]) by bilbo.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.4-GR) with ESMTP id CME63318; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:43:23 +0200 (IST) Original-To: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 In-reply-to: (storm@cua.dk) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:20025 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:20025 > From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) > Date: 17 Feb 2004 11:16:11 +0100 > > We have been discussing the new compile.el on the mailing lists. We are discussing a lot of things, many of them don't end in a patch and not necessarily are meant to. Even if code fragments are being posted and discussed, there's no way to know that someone is actively working on a change. > Also, the patch you applied to keyboard.c also had a nasty bug which > I had already raised on the mailing list, and thus explained why it > should not be applied in its current form. I was quite surprised > to see it installed anyway. Richard asked me to install it a long time ago, and I guess I've missed your objections (and so did Richard, it seems, since he never drew my attention to your objections). As long as we rely on humans to pay attention, these things can happen. > Given several incidents over the last few weeks where patches do more > harm than good, I think we need to tighten the procedure of applying > "3rd party" patches. I don't have anything against formalizing patch approval (in fact, I suggested long ago that we do that for _all_ non-trivial changes, but was voted down). However, when Richard or some other core maintainer asks me to install a patch, I don't regard that as ``3rd party'', I'm sure you understand why. > Before applying a 3rd party patch, a message is sent to emacs-devel > with the subject: > > PATCH REVIEW: [title from original mail] > > If no objections are received to that mail in 36 hours, you are > free to go ahead an install it. People who object to a patch can voice their objections as things are today: simply assume that every patch suggested on one of the 3 mailing lists could be installed RSN. In other words, if you care about the quality of the CVS code, please take time to review patches that ``3rd parties'' are posting on these 3 lists. No need to wait for an announcement that a certain patch is about to be installed.