From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "John Wiegley" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: New maintainer Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 15:59:33 -0700 Organization: New Artisans LLC Message-ID: References: <874miapdhs.fsf@openmailbox.org> <8737xuuw2y.fsf@rabkins.net> <87lhbmkrle.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87si5r22qh.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <5612CEA6.3010809@yandex.ru> <87egh95cze.fsf@gmail.com> <5612D36B.1030906@yandex.ru> <87a8rx5awg.fsf@gmail.com> <87a8rvu0ij.fsf@red-bean.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1444172430 22655 80.91.229.3 (6 Oct 2015 23:00:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 23:00:30 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 07 01:00:23 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 1ZjbDa-0002dB-Ne for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 01:00:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54478 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjbDZ-00036Y-Qe for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 19:00:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49322) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjbDK-00034j-Mv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 19:00:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjbDG-0003qe-PV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 19:00:06 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pa0-x22d.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d]:35014) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjbDG-0003pz-Km for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 19:00:02 -0400 Original-Received: by pacfv12 with SMTP id fv12so315089pac.2 for ; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:00:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:date:organization:message-id :references:user-agent:mail-followup-to:mime-version:content-type; bh=G35Cw1oYmK7E+GDV8xvFiea7Z+7hx6eWVkrJ3RYJ9Q8=; b=psM8iCBi4cthGPFY3WHF/UNcjVnQzRcu2IsurqL9IEJPIN7Nam6YS1++dk91t/aw7q mB81ftTFEuE9C4KwgKtPP8x83X5SyMNsRNScvRvwnoZsYRUylZqXH1C7SMlXL7+bSRZq lfSz9QwCc7AHN41hWLYUiDM5S5ASGXwOlZD5kld6pFV5qRIMazUbIDYXJ0dPkOrfKcpw c5o2oWa3oMqqyYs4p+iDuKrxW3CKxzn4h2jFbAyrY16wK+mfLElq/YuOnhVUkj96yege +c74O8UoZeMHvYG3KV5L6VYOEy9xtml347s9W52uluu9JCKMNgsnl+hVNdq6KYx3UicF ezrw== X-Received: by 10.67.16.15 with SMTP id fs15mr29492952pad.82.1444172401712; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from Hermes-2.local (99-121-201-99.lightspeed.frokca.sbcglobal.net. [99.121.201.99]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id rp5sm35676306pab.0.2015.10.06.16.00.00 for (version=TLS1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:00:00 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by Hermes-2.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 50398469CD29; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 16:00:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87a8rvu0ij.fsf@red-bean.com> (Karl Fogel's message of "Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:53:40 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (darwin) Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d 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:191028 Archived-At: >>>>> Karl Fogel writes: > Given the context and past discussions, I think you would better assume that > Richard meant "If GCC doesn't *actually* support the feature, then Emacs > shouldn't add support for that feature just because Clang does." I think at > the very least the criterion would be that an actual patch to GCC must > exist, even if no release of GCC includes it yet. OK, there are a few details here, and I'm hoping Richard will clarify. Let's assume some feature X that one might want of a compiler. There are a few ways GCC might relate to this feature: 1. It has X, and we can expose it to Emacs. 2. It has X, but does not provide it in a useful way, because doing so is against FSF policy. 3. It could have X, but doesn't yet. 4. It will never have X, since providing it would be prohibitively expensive, or against policy. The question is, assuming Clang falls into first category, what is the situation for Emacs? A. Emacs is only allowed to provide the feature for GCC, and must wait until GCC makes it available (if ever). B. Emacs can only offer the feature for other compilers too, but only once it is able to offer it for GCC. This means we are blocked on GCC development before we can support other compilers. C. If Emacs can support the feature in a _general_ fashion -- so that GCC could just as easily be supported as Clang -- then Clang support is allowed before GCC support, assuming Clang has it and GCC doesn't (or might never). D. Emacs is allowed to directly support Clang features that GCC never will, because this makes Emacs a better editor. I'm pretty sure D is out, based on RMS' past comments. I also think A is out. My question is whether Emacs project policy is B, C, or something more. John