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: new Emacs maintainer(s)? Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:44:49 +0200 Message-ID: <86lkexgpta.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> References: <878xb05ras.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <200706041853.l54IrLXb006451@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> <200706051632.l55GWNSZ026462@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> <87ps4aue45.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87fy55cy7v.fsf@kfs-lx.testafd.dk> <86y7ixjwtd.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <87tztlbcs0.fsf@kfs-lx.testafd.dk> <868xaxjqtw.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <87vee1xpds.fsf@ambire.localdomain> <86zm3di8xx.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <87myzdxlte.fsf@ambire.localdomain> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1181137507 29552 80.91.229.12 (6 Jun 2007 13:45:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 13:45:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Thien-Thi Nguyen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 06 15:45:06 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 1Hvvow-0001Ml-0j for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:45:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hvvov-0007Fo-CY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:45:05 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Hvvoj-0007AG-5R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:44:53 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Hvvoh-00079I-CA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:44:52 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hvvoh-000799-2K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:44:51 -0400 Original-Received: from pc3.berlin.powerweb.de ([62.67.228.11]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Hvvog-00069b-Io for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:44:50 -0400 Original-Received: from quinscape.de (dslnet.212-29-44.ip210.dokom.de [212.29.44.210] (may be forged)) by pc3.berlin.powerweb.de (8.9.3p3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14205 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:44:43 +0200 X-Delivered-To: Original-Received: (qmail 26998 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2007 13:44:49 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO lola.quinscape.zz) ([10.0.3.43]) (envelope-sender ) by ns.quinscape.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 6 Jun 2007 13:44:49 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 736468F8EB; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:44:49 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87myzdxlte.fsf@ambire.localdomain> (Thien-Thi Nguyen's message of "Wed\, 06 Jun 2007 15\:19\:09 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/23.0.51 (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:72336 Archived-At: Thien-Thi Nguyen writes: > () David Kastrup > () Wed, 06 Jun 2007 14:06:18 +0200 > > I disagree. x.1 is mostly done in the trunk, x.2+ mostly in a > stabilized branch. It is my opinion that this requires different > skillsets for most of the time. > > a release coalesces around some vision for that release, not on a > skillset. it is precisely because there are different skillsets > required that whoever does x.1 should do x.2+, for three reasons: > > - cohesion of vision for the x.* releases > - self-improvement in the "maintenance" skillset for x.1 folks > - self-improvement in the ".1 release" skillset for (x+1).1 folks I disagree, again. Moving towards a vision and polishing it are different goals in my book. But since I already made my argument, there is little point in repeating it and we will obviously remain in disagreement. Whatever the theory, Richard will have to make the pick, and whomever he chooses for what task will be human and not a robot designed according to one of our specifications. I have little doubt that both of us will find the final choice appropriate. [...] > anyway, that's all i have to say on the matter. Same here. -- David Kastrup