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: Preview: portable dumper Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 17:11:33 +0200 Message-ID: <83wpfhkpy2.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83inr2oje6.fsf@gnu.org> <83bmwuogfb.fsf@gnu.org> <878trydrbo.fsf@red-bean.com> <83a8cem1eq.fsf@gnu.org> <83zikdl7oo.fsf@gnu.org> <83y3zxkwms.fsf@gnu.org> <20161203143603.GA6921@acm.fritz.box> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1480777898 29255 195.159.176.226 (3 Dec 2016 15:11:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 15:11:38 +0000 (UTC) Cc: kfogel@red-bean.com, dancol@dancol.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 03 16:11:30 2016 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 1cDByL-0005yj-RN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 16:11:29 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51469 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cDByO-00069k-20 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 10:11:32 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:32933) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cDByI-00069R-F2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 10:11:27 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cDByE-00077F-G3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 10:11:26 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:47101) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cDByE-00077B-Cr; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 10:11:22 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4016 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1cDByD-00043G-IW; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 10:11:22 -0500 In-reply-to: <20161203143603.GA6921@acm.fritz.box> (message from Alan Mackenzie on Sat, 3 Dec 2016 14:36:04 +0000) 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:209981 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 14:36:04 +0000 > From: Alan Mackenzie > Cc: kfogel@red-bean.com, Daniel Colascione , > emacs-devel@gnu.org > > However, it feels that an unusually high proportion of C level changes I > have hacked or proposed have been rejected. ("Unusual" when compared to > lisp level changes.) Can you estimate that proportion? You cited 3 examples, and then said that "a lot of changes have been accepted". 3 out of many is not a high proportion. > (i) Changing the method of syntax.c scanning backwards over comments. My > changes found their way into branch comment-cache in 2016-03. Despite > this change having been extensively discussed in emacs-devel, and sort of > "approved", the final patch was never considered on its merits. The > ostensible reason was that it used a cache which wasn't the syntax-ppss > cache. I don't think I participated in that discussion or reviewed that patch, so I cannot say anything about that. > (ii) Around 2015-11-17, I proposed a patch to fix bug #21869 and bug > #21333, with top line of the commit message being "Invoke > window-size-change-functions after changing echo area height.". The > problem here was that window-size-change-functions was sometimes being > called twice. You rejected my patch because you were "not keen" on > changing the order of calls in the display engine because we "didn't > fully understand what was going on". Again, I don't think this proposed > patch was really considered on its merits. Please see https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=21869#23 It indicates that we already had a patch for those problems, which was already tested quite a lot by that time. I think it's only natural to prefer a well tested and discussed patch to a new one trying to fix the same problem. Reading this message further down: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=21869#37 I see that you agreed that the problem was fixed by the patch we had, which allowed me to close the bug. > (iii) Earlier this year, we were having problems because some primitives > were not calling before-change-functions and after-change-functions the > way we might wish. My offer to analyse the code and amend it so that all > primitives would call b-c-f and a-c-f predictably was declined, the > proviso being (if I remember correctly) "unless somebody writes a solid > suite of unit tests". At the time of this rejection, I'd already > invested some time on the analysis. That's not exactly my recollection. The analysis was not rejected, I simply already did it when you proposed that, so it wasn't necessary. > In short, I feel discouraged from working at the C level because of the > above. Please don't be discouraged. There's no policy of preventing changes on the C level. However, for some changes which affect important functions, I think it's prudent to require a reasonable coverage by tests, so that we know we didn't break anything.