From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Konstantin Kharlamov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Why are so many great packages not trying to get included in GNU Emacs? WAS: Re: Making Emacs more friendly to newcomers Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 01:25:15 +0300 Message-ID: <7980043db95fb5d74052e25f1ce3f5d3db1cae2d.camel@yandex.ru> References: <87k12bdgx7.fsf@yahoo.com> <87r1wi7a8o.fsf@yahoo.com> <875zdteybt.fsf@runbox.com> <87368wrvf5.fsf@yahoo.com> <86k126d83n.wl-me@enzu.ru> <83pnbyckvv.fsf@gnu.org> <4923d7e98f5ed816a7569093dbc673153adcea88.camel@yandex.ru> <874krex73o.fsf@gmail.com> <87eeqctgb4.fsf@elephly.net> <83wo43xom6.fsf@gnu.org> <83r1u9vnr3.fsf@gnu.org> <09632e8ec343ddee558b18f811ef6da77e594f55.camel@yandex.ru> <83pn9tvhta.fsf@gnu.org> <83mu4xvari.fsf@gnu.org> <1faa5c4154ea49a2d10d16741dfad8451ef27abd.camel@yandex.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="50979"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.3 Cc: rekado@elephly.net, dgutov@yandex.ru, stefan@marxist.se, joaotavora@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 21 00:26:02 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1jmlw1-000D9Q-Le for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 00:26:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52628 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jmlw0-0000bv-OQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 18:26:00 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36714) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jmlvQ-0006I3-CD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 18:25:24 -0400 Original-Received: from forward101j.mail.yandex.net ([5.45.198.241]:52011) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jmlvN-0004ts-Fx; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 18:25:24 -0400 Original-Received: from mxback9j.mail.yandex.net (mxback9j.mail.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:0:1619::112]) by forward101j.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id B9DFD1BE1195; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 01:25:17 +0300 (MSK) Original-Received: from myt5-aad1beefab42.qloud-c.yandex.net (myt5-aad1beefab42.qloud-c.yandex.net [2a02:6b8:c12:128:0:640:aad1:beef]) by mxback9j.mail.yandex.net (mxback/Yandex) with ESMTP id MpxawLelby-PHjGMfOo; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 01:25:17 +0300 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1592691917; bh=TSya3QaurdlinmPFTepWqbOkgsJnh71HjYNj7kY9z+A=; h=In-Reply-To:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:References:Date; b=lBmgKct4ipwRWiGtxyp0zCdJ18xdWd3MY7bhVwHzL2ThTBpK0c2woFduex2YfNBWt IepimlLzNRnYvCYKVFI4RkXt2RUkV3KwPCx1DI+NF37EzZE7EuDu4nMxG8N/HpD/eB g+isI72XYi1YwKhvMvUSsOwuRB2MjkyiB1gEgdwA= Authentication-Results: mxback9j.mail.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@yandex.ru Original-Received: by myt5-aad1beefab42.qloud-c.yandex.net (smtp/Yandex) with ESMTPSA id o5xQh8mW4A-PGJuiTbo; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 01:25:16 +0300 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client certificate not present) In-Reply-To: <1faa5c4154ea49a2d10d16741dfad8451ef27abd.camel@yandex.ru> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=5.45.198.241; envelope-from=hi-angel@yandex.ru; helo=forward101j.mail.yandex.net X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/06/20 18:25:18 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:252469 Archived-At: On Sun, 2020-06-21 at 00:31 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov wrote: > On Sat, 2020-06-20 at 21:43 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > From: Konstantin Kharlamov > > > Cc: rekado@elephly.net, joaotavora@gmail.com, dgutov@yandex.ru, > > > stefan@marxist.se, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2020 21:04:23 +0300 > > > > > > > Our experiences are different, then. I find them very important in at > > > > least some cases. > > > > > > Right. I should mention though, my experience is not specific to myself. > > > Most > > > non-GNU projects (actually, all I have seen) don't require having the > > > list, > > > but > > > do require good commit messages. > > > > Like I said, latest GCS leave this decision to the project developers' > > discretion. > > > > You may also wish to check how long do those projects live, and > > compare that with Emacs. Not every technique that is good for a > > 5-year project will scale well for a 35-year one. In my work on Emacs > > I quite frequently need to look at changes made 30 years ago, using a > > different VCS. > > Right, as well as not every technique that was good 35 years ago is still as > good nowadays. > > > > I also don't think GNU projects are any good to make examples of. This is > > > my > > > general experience of seeing how new projects get under GNU umbrella to > > > get > > > never heard of (which I attribute to points listed in my starting mail, > > > since > > > most of them are unspecific to Emacs). > > > > I hope you realize how saying that makes your opinions matter much > > less, do you? > > No, I don't. Are you implying that voicing bad opinion regarding GNU on a GNU > mailing list may lead to some people to start ignoring me? If so, I'm fine > with > it. You see, my opinions are based on facts. My interpretation of them may be > wrong, but if I expressed them, I am not aware of it. On this mailing list, we > carry technical discussions, which means expressing arguments and counter- > arguments based on facts, and being ready to turn out to be wrong. > > Ignoring someone based on their opinion instead of trying to prove them wrong > is > not a technical behavior. These are not very technical people, they sometimes > go > personal, so if their reaction is a silence, that's fine with me. > > FYI, for me even participating in discussions is hard, for personal reasons. > But > I am a software engineer, and I get the boundary between personal feelings and > technical discussions, so I get over it. > > > > git log -500 --format="%ae" | grep -vP > > > "@\S*(redhat|arm|suse|google|gnu|adacore|alibaba|intel|ibm|apple|linaro|hu > > > aw > > > ei|c > > > odesourcery|golang|sony|amd|chromium|nvidia|loongson|accesssoftek|ubisoft| > > > mi > > > cros > > > oft|fb|energize|comstyle|nextsilicon|quicinc|azul|gentoo|graphcore|gdcproj > > > ec > > > t|si > > > five)\.(org|com|de|cz|cn)" | sort -u | wc -l > > > > > > Results are: > > > * GCC as of commit 445d8da5fbd: 15 > > > * Clang as of commit 7b201bfcac2: 49 > > > > > > This is some pretty big difference! If I expand the commits range, the > > > difference increases further. > > > > GCC is alive for 33 years, so I think your theory eats dust. Many of > > the GCC and GDB developers get paid for their work, but that doesn't > > mean the project is less viable, and the long history of both GCC and > > GDB is the proof. > > Okay, let me say beforehand that both GCC and Clang are very active projects > right now. Just in case, so there's no misunderstanding. > > So, times are changing. In older times there were no standard to development, > Git was not as popular, development practices are varied too. So, as long you > could get your patch to a project, any odd contribution requirements were > fine, > they hardly would set a barrier. > > But these days Git got over all other VCSes (and for a reason), so using SVN > or > Perforce, or whatever, is a barrier to contribution. 12 years ago Github was > founded, and then also the open-source clone Gitlab appeared. These two pretty > much set the standard development model nowadays (for a reason too). There > still > are projects that use other models, but this is a barrier to contributors. > > What I'm getting at is that your reasoning that since GCC is 33 years old it > will live on does not work. For a project to "live on" it needs to be active. > Sure GCC is active! But its activity mainly stems from paid people and > maintainers. Whereas in Clang a large chunk of it stems from contributors. Let > me repeat, paid people come and go, so do maintainers (they may burn out, or > just move on). These contributors are the ones who will become new maintainers > and the ones who advertise the project in their environment. > > I hope it makes clear the future of what project looks brighter. Btw, I figured I botched my calculations by using last 500 commits. If in one project a few persons posted huge patchsets, but in another nobody, then clearly the latter gets more mails in last 500 commits, which is wrong. So, I recalculated by looking at date of the last commit of those "500" in GCC, and used that date on Clang. I made sure to sort out other corporate mails too. Command I used is: git log --since="Jun 8 21:34:46" --format="%ae" | grep -vP "@\S*(redhat|arm|suse|google|gnu|adacore|alibaba|intel|ibm|apple|linaro|huawei|c odesourcery|golang|sony|amd|chromium|nvidia|loongson|accesssoftek|ubisoft|micros oft|fb|energize|comstyle|nextsilicon|quicinc|azul|gentoo|graphcore|gdcproject|si five|imagelabs|xilinx|sap|sas|sigmatechnology|sonarsource|ericsson|lowrisc|hight ec-rt|polymagelabs)\.(org|com|de|cz|cn|ai|se)" | sort -u | wc -l So, now GCC still gets 15, while for Clang this number gets increased to 89.