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: IDE Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 19:28:03 +0200 Message-ID: <87fv18m6ho.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <5612E996.7090700@yandex.ru> <83bnc7tavr.fsf@gnu.org> <5618C92A.3040207@yandex.ru> <83a8rrt9ag.fsf@gnu.org> <871tcyexa9.fsf@fimbulvetr.bsc.es> <87612a7my2.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <561DC925.5050001@siege-engine.com> <561E32D2.4060501@yandex.ru> <83wpum3ozk.fsf@gnu.org> <87si59ln6u.fsf@isaac.fritz.box> <56224B63.3010803@yandex.ru> <87k2qlldny.fsf@isaac.fritz.box> <5622AD4D.3010504@yandex.ru> <87bnbwl7ac.fsf@isaac.fritz.box> <5623CA16.5090300@yandex.ru> <87wpukje2o.fsf@isaac.fritz.box> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1445189327 29680 80.91.229.3 (18 Oct 2015 17:28:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 17:28:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: John Wiegley , Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov To: David Engster Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 18 19:28:41 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Znrl8-0002r9-JK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 19:28:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34909 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Znrl7-0001IN-PH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:28:37 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50156) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Znrl4-0001Hw-5C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:28:35 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Znrl3-00082T-4f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:28:33 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:50004) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Znrl3-00082K-2b; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:28:33 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35587 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1Znrkz-0001Nf-Ew; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:28:30 -0400 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0FEA0DF535; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 19:28:03 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87wpukje2o.fsf@isaac.fritz.box> (David Engster's message of "Sun, 18 Oct 2015 19:12:31 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:191980 Archived-At: David Engster writes: > Dmitry Gutov writes: >>> Well, it's not like a bunch of people are hacking on the C >>> parser. Several things happened: >> >> It's not like I'm blaming anyone, really. But it leaves an impression >> of CEDET being more of a research project. > > It leaves the impression of an understaffed project. Which is the rule rather than the exception for Free Software projects. Even when done under corporate veil, the expectation for Free Software (partly due to the claims of the Open Source movement) is very much that many people may pitch in. Most projects are neither prepared to deal with significantly fewer people pitching in than expected (the more likely case) as they are for significantly more people pitching in. The key provision for either possibility is a modular architecture where people can work on multiple fronts without either depending too much on each other for their individual progress, nor getting in each other's hair. I think that if CEDET fell apart into more independently accessible, usable, and changeable parts, it might gather more buy-in on its independent components. Of course, having a separate repository that has diverged from the versions in upstream Emacs does not exactly help with having contributors become active on just their favorite parts of it. -- David Kastrup