From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii 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 05:35:24 +0300 Message-ID: <83k101uowj.fsf@gnu.org> 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> <7980043db95fb5d74052e25f1ce3f5d3db1cae2d.camel@yandex.ru> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="115022"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rekado@elephly.net, dgutov@yandex.ru, stefan@marxist.se, joaotavora@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Konstantin Kharlamov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 21 04:36:07 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 1jmpq2-000Tpn-Tr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 04:36:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41104 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jmpq1-0006S2-Vp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 22:36:05 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38088) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jmppY-0005b4-Dm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 22:35:36 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:47500) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jmppW-0006AE-Aa; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 22:35:34 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4506 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jmppV-0001g0-PR; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 22:35:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <7980043db95fb5d74052e25f1ce3f5d3db1cae2d.camel@yandex.ru> (message from Konstantin Kharlamov on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 01:25:15 +0300) 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:252478 Archived-At: > From: Konstantin Kharlamov > Cc: rekado@elephly.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org, stefan@marxist.se, > joaotavora@gmail.com, dgutov@yandex.ru > Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 01:25:15 +0300 > > 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. This metric is irrelevant. Basically, you removed everyone who was a prominent developer, so it's little wonder that you are left with a small number. Using such arbitrary criteria, one can "prove" anything for any project. Once again, the long history and the active development of GCC over those long years are a clear evidence that your criterion is completely off the mark.