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: Concurrency, again Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 18:09:54 +0300 Message-ID: <83zilrtad9.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87wq97i78i.fsf@earlgrey.lan> <86k2dk77w6.fsf@molnjunk.nocrew.org> <9D64B8EA-DB52-413D-AE6A-264416C391F3@iotcl.com> <83int1g0s5.fsf@gnu.org> <83twckekqq.fsf@gnu.org> <83funkwfzf.fsf@gnu.org> <87k2cwe4wl.fsf@jupiter.lan> <87zilr5hrp.fsf@lifelogs.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477494636 16570 195.159.176.226 (26 Oct 2016 15:10:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 15:10:36 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 26 17:10:28 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 1bzPqH-0001gs-I7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:10:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35335 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bzPqJ-0007Oq-Ss for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:10:15 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44412) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bzPq2-0007Jw-G8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:10:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bzPpx-0001zu-T0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:09:58 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:37401) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bzPpx-0001zo-PR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:09:53 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2459 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bzPpx-0001OM-56 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:09:53 -0400 In-reply-to: <87zilr5hrp.fsf@lifelogs.com> (message from Ted Zlatanov on Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:03:54 -0400) 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:208846 Archived-At: > From: Ted Zlatanov > Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:03:54 -0400 > > Please don't forget that writing code is a small (10-15%) part of the > overall cost. Documentation, backwards portability, handling bugs > (including bugs caused by poor documentation or poor API design!), > technical debt, and ongoing maintenance are costs that must be > considered by the Emacs maintainers for any proposed change. The scope, > therefore, matters: the wider the scope of the change, the more risk and > cost it may incur. FWIW, those additional costs were never considered by this project, AFAIR. If a feature was deemed useful and its implementation clean enough, it was invariably accepted, under the assumption that the costs will be bearable. We even accepted significant features with minimal or no documentation at all. And at least in one case, the developer actually dropped off the grid when the time came for seriously shaking out his feature.