From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Emacs Windows barebin distribution Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 09:39:37 -0800 Message-ID: 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="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1353260405 8877 80.91.229.3 (18 Nov 2012 17:40:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:40:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: cschol2112@googlemail.com, 'Eli Zaretskii' , emacs-devel@gnu.org, 'Mathias Dahl' To: "'Juanma Barranquero'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 18 18:40:15 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 1Ta8qr-0001dP-Tz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 18:40:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50820 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ta8qh-0000Wk-6M for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:40:03 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58437) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ta8qc-0000WO-1I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:40:01 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ta8qY-0004Ca-Vk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:39:57 -0500 Original-Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:36440) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ta8qV-0004Bx-BW; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:39:51 -0500 Original-Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id qAIHdnj1023639 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:39:49 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt356.oracle.com (acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qAIHdmgv018292 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:39:48 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt110.oracle.com (abhmt110.oracle.com [141.146.116.62]) by acsmt356.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id qAIHdmoB021054; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 11:39:48 -0600 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/71.202.147.44) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 09:39:48 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Ac3FslXszufkjlckT1iZ2O84c5rDBgAAIGSg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 156.151.31.81 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:154920 Archived-At: > > 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. The proposal from Matthias was not a proposal to poll the users. He suggested examining the download logs to see how much the barebins were picked up. I do not know how much energy is required to do that, which is why my support for it was qualified by "if easy", "if feasible" etc. > Removing something deemed unnecessary and waiting for anyone > to complain is less work. That wouldn't be a good rationale for > killing a heavily used, or a core, feature, but it seems perfectly > reasonable to me when speaking of something that's likely not used by > anybody (more so after Eli's comment about it being broken). I don't disagree with that at all. I agree that it is a reasonable approach. My argument was against the reasoning that _because_ no one has spoken up here there must not be any user interest in this. That's a false argument and suggests a bad attitude, IMHO. > So the argument and the attitude is, I think, "why should we spend > time in something that we're convinced it is useless anyway, unless we > have a good reason to think otherwise?" See above. That is a fair argument. But that is not the argument and attitude I was speaking about.