From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs Windows barebin distribution Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:02:02 +0900 Message-ID: <87fw466y11.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <4F8ADAFC.9030308@gmail.com> <831unp0xzq.fsf@gnu.org> <837gpj0vyo.fsf@gnu.org> <551F5F9812F347C08746E86B58C59129@us.oracle.com> <6FB41164B73A4DE480BD74B0601BA8FD@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1353297735 17824 80.91.229.3 (19 Nov 2012 04:02:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 04:02:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: cschol2112@googlemail.com, Eli Zaretskii , Mathias Dahl , Drew Adams , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 19 05:02:25 2012 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 1TaIYy-0000Dx-KZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 05:02:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53060 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TaIYo-0004aQ-Fh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 23:02:14 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34206) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TaIYk-0004ZN-Nk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 23:02:13 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TaIYh-0005xm-Lg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 23:02:10 -0500 Original-Received: from mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:54530) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TaIYe-0005xP-06; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 23:02:04 -0500 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82EA49706A8; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:02:02 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 494E51A2778; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:02:02 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta32) "habanero" b0d40183ac79 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 130.158.97.224 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:154948 Archived-At: Juanma Barranquero writes: > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Drew Adams wrote: > > > And in this case a very good measure was proposed. And, > > unbelievably, it was summarily dismissed/countered in favor of > > reliance on the much poorer measure of emacs-devel activity. > > That is the argument and the attitude I spoke out against. > > Polling users doesn't happen on its own. Someone has to spend the time > to do it. Removing something deemed unnecessary and waiting for anyone > to complain is less work. +1 Exactly what I would have said first. I would have added that it's also far more accurate than polling, though it (might) involve more pain for the users.