From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tom Tromey Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Patch for fields of `struct buffer' Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 21:16:20 -0700 Message-ID: References: <4D47DFD4.1040108@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1296620204 23467 80.91.229.12 (2 Feb 2011 04:16:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 04:16:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dan.colascione@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 02 05:16:34 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PkU8w-0000mI-1L for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 05:16:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55325 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PkU8v-0000TC-BK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 23:16:33 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=53806 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PkU8p-0000T1-UV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 23:16:28 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PkU8p-0000ZT-2C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 23:16:27 -0500 Original-Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:22120) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PkU8m-0000Yv-SY; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 23:16:25 -0500 Original-Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p124GMqV022189 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 1 Feb 2011 23:16:22 -0500 Original-Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p124GMc6030783; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 23:16:22 -0500 Original-Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p124GLek018065; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 23:16:21 -0500 Original-Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 1177F3784E1; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 21:16:21 -0700 (MST) X-Attribution: Tom In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Tue, 01 Feb 2011 21:42:58 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.23 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:135452 Archived-At: RMS> So why merge the macro calls into the trunk? RMS> You could put them in a branch. If you ever get preemptive threads RMS> working such that we want to install it, we could install that change then. [...] RMS> That goal seems unobjectionable, but why do you need to change these RMS> calls in the trunk to be able to work on your branch? We did have a branch, but it quickly got stale. Because the needed infrastructure changes are pervasive, it was very hard to do merges -- there were a lot of conflicts. This is not a problem in itself, since we could simply not do merges. But, then that also would greatly reduce the prospects for ever merging back. Putting these changes on the trunk makes it possible to keep the branch relatively up-to-date, making it simpler to merge into trunk when the time comes. Tom