From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Flymake support for C/C++ Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 11:33:39 +0300 Message-ID: <83r2u6i0ws.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87zi8wmmhw.fsf@gmail.com> <83tvz2i2fv.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1507970119 3091 195.159.176.226 (14 Oct 2017 08:35:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 08:35:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, npostavs@users.sourceforge.net, kerolasa@iki.fi, emacs-devel@gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, acm@muc.de, sdl.web@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca To: Reuben Thomas Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 14 10:35:12 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 1e3HuV-0007Dh-5u for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 10:35:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53197 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e3HuX-0006OM-C6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 04:35:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40060) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e3Htr-0006Lx-Ce for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 04:34:30 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e3Htq-0008CQ-Ao for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 04:34:27 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:42289) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e3HtQ-0007s0-Ms; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 04:34:00 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3405 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1e3HtC-00032t-07; Sat, 14 Oct 2017 04:33:47 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Reuben Thomas on Sat, 14 Oct 2017 09:15:52 +0100) 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:219493 Archived-At: > From: Reuben Thomas > Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 09:15:52 +0100 > Cc: Richard Stallman , João Távora , > Sami Kerola , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Alan Mackenzie , > Noam Postavsky , sdl.web@gmail.com, > Stefan Monnier > > I don't understand: Flycheck is an external package; why should we > prefer it to Flymake, assuming that the latter will become supported > well by the built-in major modes? > > ​See ​http://www.flycheck.org/en/latest/user/flycheck-versus-flymake.html#flycheck-versus-flymake​ That compares with the old Flymake. > And I suggested precisely bundling Flycheck with Emacs.​ Is this likely to happen? The comments here seem to be clear evidence to the contrary: https://github.com/flycheck/flycheck/issues/323#issuecomment-38094131 https://github.com/flycheck/flycheck/issues/323#issuecomment-38169115 > ​Because with Flycheck this is already accomplished. Why not work instead on things that Emacs lacks?​ > There are already far too many duplicated packages, leading to duplicated maintenance effort. See above: the Flycheck developers seem to be unwilling to work with this project. Having a good bundled alternative could very well become a better one.