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: Obscure error/warning/information message from git pull Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 22:18:21 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87tx21o50i.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <20141114120604.GA3859@acm.acm> <87a93topxv.fsf@igel.home> <83h9y1j18p.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3x590k0.fsf@maru2.md5i.com> <83tx21hf2f.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1415999942 2277 80.91.229.3 (14 Nov 2014 21:19:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 21:19:02 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 14 22:18:53 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 1XpOGa-0007Y4-U5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 22:18:53 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37919 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XpOGa-0004oE-DC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:18:52 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46654) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XpOGS-0004o6-1I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:18:49 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XpOGK-0003mV-EO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:18:43 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:33331) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XpOGK-0003mO-7b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:18:36 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XpOGI-0007OL-DJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 22:18:34 +0100 Original-Received: from x2f520ac.dyn.telefonica.de ([2.245.32.172]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 22:18:34 +0100 Original-Received: from dak by x2f520ac.dyn.telefonica.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 22:18:34 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 36 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: x2f520ac.dyn.telefonica.de X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:FtQ1Qh1xSIY1T/d3RgmKIkBrlfA= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 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:177123 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > I wasn't asking about Windows. It is clear to me by reading the > script that using that on Windows is a bad idea, because symlinks are > (a) only supported since Vista, and (b) require to run the script "As > Administrator". (And then there's a known caveat of removing the > symlinked directory that actually removes the target, if you aren't > careful to use rmdir.) It's things like this that make me wonder whether the system programmers at Microsoft are forbidden from using any other operating system. How would anyone with modest exposure to decent operating systems stand this kind of thing? As programmer I somewhat regularly encounter the situation "this behavior is far too inconsistent to make it worth documenting: let's rather work on fixing it first". It usually does not even need the comparison to other systems to figure out the bad stuff from the good. Now I can understand that at some times commercial development results in decisions like "we won't invest work on implementing this". But "we'll invest into creating a quite crippled and mostly useless version of the feature": where is the point in that? How does this work? Somebody knowing the feature from other system pins down the salient points on a piece of scrap paper, someone else who never saw it and speaks a different language then writes the spec sheet, and somebody else who never saw the point in that feature implements those parts of that spec sheet that are easiest to do? Something must be going seriously wrong somewhere, and it's not the first time that I cannot fathom just what. -- David Kastrup