From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Development suggestions from an ENSIME developer Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 09:59:18 +0300 Message-ID: <83d1m6xint.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87wpke3kdj.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83h9biyek4.fsf@gnu.org> <877fce3flr.fsf@russet.org.uk> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1469170816 5921 80.91.229.3 (22 Jul 2016 07:00:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 07:00:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 22 09:00:10 2016 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 1bQURN-0008TS-Au for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 09:00:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45447 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bQURM-00060w-KA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 03:00:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41247) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bQUQW-0005zR-KD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 02:59:17 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bQUQT-0002TZ-FY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 02:59:16 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:34619) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bQUQT-0002TR-C8; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 02:59:13 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1391 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bQUQR-0001DH-BJ; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 02:59:11 -0400 In-reply-to: <877fce3flr.fsf@russet.org.uk> (phillip.lord@russet.org.uk) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:206009 Archived-At: > From: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) > Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 21:23:28 +0100 > > > Expect it to be adopted if it makes our jobs simpler, like faster, or > > saves us from doing some of the stuff at all. Otherwise, you will > > have difficulty convincing at least me to move. > > *shrugs* > > As with everything, it will makes things somewhat slower during > adoption. That's for sure, but I wasn't talking about the transition period. > And I can only give you anecdotal evidence that it will make things > better after adoption. The number of manual actions one needs to do when processing a patch can be counted, and the counts can be compared. The "normal" speed of each operation can also be measured. So I see no issues of coming up with a more-or-less objective assessment of the proposed workflow vs the existing one. My problem is with having to learn a new system just because it's considered (or even is) "newer" or "more shiny" or presents a prettier graphics than the old one. These alone are IMO not enough to justify the effort of learning yet another tool. > > Also, I think the solution should support text-mode browsers, such as > > Lynx or Emacs's eww on TTY frames. IOW, anything that requires GUI > > and won't work otherwise is probably out of question to begin with. > > (This requirement is not for me personally.) > > If that is a hard requirement, then I think we are not going to get much > further with a web 2.0 program. The best option is going to be somewhere > to host clones for developers, and then use debbugs. > > But, it really is a hard requirement. I don't know if this is a hard requirement, it isn't mine. I don't use Lynx. I do use Emacs on a TTY, for remotely accessing other machines, and I do sometimes need to be able to fix bugs and commit changes from such a remote session. So a solution that can be reasonably used from a TTY frame in Emacs or from a shell prompt will be welcome. Also, if a Web interface is really required for all the proposed alternatives, then it means I'll have to leave Emacs and fire up a Web browser, right? Because EWW, as good as it is (and it is good), is still not up to that level, is it?