From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Development suggestions from an ENSIME developer Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 12:46:14 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87wpke3kdj.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83h9biyek4.fsf@gnu.org> <877fce3flr.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83d1m6xint.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1469184448 26212 80.91.229.3 (22 Jul 2016 10:47:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:47:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Phillip Lord To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 22 12:47:18 2016 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 1bQXzB-0001YZ-F4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 12:47:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46417 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bQXz7-0001ND-Hg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 06:47:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55571) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bQXyZ-0001N2-Fj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 06:46:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bQXyT-0007Hx-CP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 06:46:38 -0400 Original-Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]:46583) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bQXyT-0007H6-5W; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 06:46:33 -0400 Original-Received: from cm-84.215.1.64.getinternet.no ([84.215.1.64] helo=stories) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bQXyM-0008Q8-V5; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 12:46:28 +0200 Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAGFBMVEX9vCv+vyv+virfo1eo W0v+wi7+xjT+wS0HHiYZAAACcElEQVQ4jU2TMW/bMBCFT7ISrzqmDldJRTM7JeOsBki0s4DSWgOk 0mwiFfj3+46SEnMwDH56994dSaLb1ZXdsphp5yt/rnxV0bmqStnipDkxkZctbDpnq67FVozzPCQB Z1F4763vlO6HkFdWOCi8rLLVfdrAMe9Vrqp2VdkeBh3CJYQJUZqyabqcqWv1HGaAaZqoLJscsKEm x4wshS5QtDUvpFGKeZbtSRRUtMz4UpUFC+i3UtS2WqOrmt+NKZZIC6CWdV029YMx9te87cMcHqxU qQyAG1cHASgSuaV774DMSxgXgvQwxzD/eQiMv1sK5VTpeq2JrLNAx89aRHruE13JO9Sy5mUIl8Wc 9jrpmu/xuYfHaQ0FwFHzlR6zRQZrqYJ14lq68Dgqe/rqA3Fxjjt4e7gAjJuC66LpMrDendb+AGqw ohSweqxgn1I4pALAwsaeb8xj0ESPxmfJad7Mi5SG0Nc/bO4Qs9oOCnHRCBMioUOXwWWcRjQehjAk tgYK67Y+RirQ36FnnJ/kzSBMlwUMQ1T8YUGcNaKQMUoq1lA8ADhvjcw9Xzgo4gzwZGTqy+Fe5F7t 5YpE3CA5WFR7XRSjzIpl8nB3fzHH1xTzHVo8BD4a93b0/hkPZ85Ap5RZ8+48OvyJazYPAuSSRPm5 NwLe8PeAS0/bc2y77l0O961krePwBbCe5NhrnrGklHyrNuJOSkW8qTWujqrlVmgvr+og48qlWF6G vBJo8YnWw2qOIFBwXhg2S61bc9HW+i4c/iygRaFO3p9C/W9E7vhhdi9UKqnxKfleED3viABgvcWV pfQc5xR+iwerWxvEkPH9B49W663BF03XAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC In-Reply-To: <83d1m6xint.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 22 Jul 2016 09:59:18 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 80.91.224.195 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:206014 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > The number of manual actions one needs to do when processing a patch > can be counted, and the counts can be compared. The "normal" speed of > each operation can also be measured. So I see no issues of coming up > with a more-or-less objective assessment of the proposed workflow vs > the existing one. Yup. The system we have in use today for bug reports is a push-based one: People use `M-x report-emacs-bug' and it lands in our email (or on Gmane) and we (I mean Eli :-)) read{s,} it and respond{s,} to it, often closing it within one or two interactions. There are other, longer interactions (involving much code review and back-and-forth discussion), of course, but these are not the typical ones. I'm all for having new and shiny and good systems for dealing with these complex interactions, but if this new and shiny systems involves pressing reload on a web page a lot, and tooling around with checkboxes and editing stuff in a web browser even for the trivial bug reports (and jumping back and forth between the browser and Emacs to examine and edit the code), then it's difficult to see how that can possibly be more efficient than the mail-based, Emacs-based bug report system we have today. But seeing is believing, so proponents of new shinyness should demonstrate the superior workflow. :-) -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no