From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [multi-tty] Emacs port status Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 23:14:18 +0200 Message-ID: <85abw3up91.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <464CC097.10700@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1179436472 30162 80.91.229.12 (17 May 2007 21:14:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 21:14:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs Devel To: Jason Rumney Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu May 17 23:14:30 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HonIn-0004BH-Lz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 23:14:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HonQv-00052a-P1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 17:22:49 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HonQr-000523-Gi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 17:22:45 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HonQq-00051B-5B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 17:22:45 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HonQp-000515-FF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 17:22:43 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-01.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.41]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HonIf-0000Gq-BO; Thu, 17 May 2007 17:14:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-13-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-13-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.30]) by mail-in-01.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B293A15C28F; Thu, 17 May 2007 23:14:15 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from mail-in-07.arcor-online.net (mail-in-07.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.47]) by mail-in-13-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BF3B1B8E05; Thu, 17 May 2007 23:14:15 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from lola.goethe.zz (dslb-084-061-041-229.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.61.41.229]) by mail-in-07.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AB4F2C29E2; Thu, 17 May 2007 23:14:15 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id D74331C4CE32; Thu, 17 May 2007 23:14:18 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <464CC097.10700@gnu.org> (Jason Rumney's message of "Thu\, 17 May 2007 21\:52\:39 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:71272 Archived-At: Jason Rumney writes: > Thanks to some help from Dan Nicolaescu, I think we have reached a > point with the Windows port where I would be comfortable merging > into the trunk. That was pleasantly fast. Of the other ports, probably the MSDOS port will provide the most puzzlers. Carbon hopefully would be simpler. > There is still much to do - none of the extra functionality is > working, and -nw support is broken, but I don't think that is a > showstopper for Windows users. Some more testing while it is still > on the branch will be most welcome. > > Maintainers of other ports may find it useful to look at the > changelogs, as the changes for other platforms will probably be > similar. Personally, I'd find it best if we merged once we have more or less agreed on the model we want to use: having the trunk as a reference for less invasive variants (where changes in callers can be reverted to their old state) might be more convenient than searching the branch line. However, this is not cast in stone. One thing that I personally am concerned about is that it might be difficult to reach a consensus about what kind of environment model we should be using and documenting. There have not actually been many people involved in the discussion, but it is clear that there are quite different standpoints from the user experience and the system architecture point of view. Resolving them will require either a long test phase with both options available and people being able to try what fits them best, or a decision by a responsible maintainer. Or both: a decision after a sufficient number of people have tested the behaviors. Personally, I would prefer the least invasive solution people can come up with (I tried sketching one myself) for the start of a test phase. And then one has to see if people actually complain about it when using them, or if people can feel at home with it well enough. We should really aim for the simplest and most logical solution that still offers tolerable behavior and works with most existing code (probably in that order of priorities). -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum