From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Karl Fogel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: More metaproblem Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 15:23:20 -0600 Message-ID: <87oarhzt87.fsf@ktab.red-bean.com> References: <20141203142859.24393.98673@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> <20141203192721.GE12748@thyrsus.com> <547F6774.50700@cs.ucla.edu> <838uio5vjw.fsf@gnu.org> <20141203211447.GB15111@thyrsus.com> <871toge5zw.fsf@floss.red-bean.com> <83388v6hsq.fsf@gnu.org> <87egsftgd5.fsf@ktab.red-bean.com> <83egsf3yci.fsf@gnu.org> <87iohq6nvn.fsf@ktab.red-bean.com> <83mw722eit.fsf@gnu.org> <87egse56hb.fsf@ktab.red-bean.com> Reply-To: Karl Fogel NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1417814640 30618 80.91.229.3 (5 Dec 2014 21:24:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 21:24:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: esr@thyrsus.com, Eli Zaretskii , eggert@cs.ucla.edu, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 05 22:23:51 2014 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 1Xx0Lu-0008Ag-PH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 22:23:50 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52517 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xx0Lu-0000KV-BT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:23:50 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45862) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xx0LZ-00007V-87 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:23:34 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xx0LT-0003eJ-Gp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:23:29 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-ig0-x22c.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22c]:40073) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xx0LT-0003eC-BG; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:23:23 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-ig0-f172.google.com with SMTP id hl2so1506767igb.5 for ; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:23:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:reply-to:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=atMbuHAAAKtsqj0MdiNKLeB4qcd3sTL7Dwg7Df0P4Co=; b=C9VblOXqVWGeKmrTiyhcpDlYl2lXimGx21byldqfnbIn1xTYDVHH2vSoLyviR3ekUl RdjWWetNljbf1PapeJ6SoUnPuafaVbwKqeSj1ZsTOaGUlZ+DwnDwBgX/X64AN15dkS0P clXCq+o3BCghm0pRNjfOQp60cpTcHbwcCSx8o9jAqQJh8JSM7kfXO9qJOiLPkgvYPkO+ x3LogSGEG63UEB3pASvpOkdv0wg04GqdIDQeo+5rFg7pcQSdpmt5yGFzGxlNwjJikvRd ojQpP+t8nwh8fLrLs/kEqHJwAuodiGMz2ASmUBirzCSnorxO9IjfuWkbjLgqOabDxjrB UFMg== X-Received: by 10.42.149.199 with SMTP id x7mr17213859icv.50.1417814602861; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:23:22 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from ktab.red-bean.com (74-92-190-113-Illinois.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [74.92.190.113]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id nm13sm1388439igb.5.2014.12.05.13.23.21 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:23:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: (Glenn Morris's message of "Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:39:33 -0500") 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: 2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22c 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:179018 Archived-At: Glenn Morris writes: >> The barrier to the bug tracker change is well-documented on this list; >> you're probably seen those conversations. Explicit proposals to move >> off debbugs have been made > >[citation needed] > >Mentioning Launchpad is not an explicit proposal. > >> and have been equally explicitly shot down on the grounds that debbugs >> is easier for senior maintainers who are already familiar with it. > >I have put a lot of work into debbugs.gnu.org. >I didn't much like it when we got it, but it was the system we had, so I >did work to make it better. Because although many people were >making a lot of noise, as usual not many people were doing anything. >In terms of using it, I've closed well over 1000 bugs. > >It integrates pretty well with Emacs IMO, in part thanks to the add-ons >other developers have written. > >If you want to replace it with something better, fine by me. >I'd find your arguments more compelling if you had contributed more to >Emacs, but perhaps the existing systems make it impossible for you to do >so. I take Stefan concerns with the tracker much more seriously. >But I have no energy left to make it any better. The sentiment you express above, toward the end, is one I see more often expressed in this project than in any other I work on. I'm sorry to hear it. I'm also sorry you put so much work into debbugs only to have me complain about it. However, I don't think that the only possible way people should be able to make proposals for new trackers (or whatever) is to post gigantic, detailed proposals that anticipates every question and technical difficulty -- and *then* get a "yes or no" answer. Instead, the way this usually works is someone posts an overview proposal first. I don't have time to dig mine out of the archives now, but when I did it was basically "How about we move to a modern, web-friendly bug tracker that *also* integrates with email similarly to how debbugs does, so that everyone has the functionality they want?" I then named some systems that do this, so people would know it wasn't just blue-sky dreaming. This was shot down with "we senior devs like the way debbugs works, so your proposal has little chance of happening". So *after that*, I'm supposed to spend the time to write up the full, detailed proposal? As a way of maybe winning the argument anyway? That's going to be a good investment of my time, after the initial rejection of the idea? I don't that's a reasonable way to expect volunteers to approach things.