From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Daniel Colascione Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Preview: portable dumper Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 09:36:22 -0800 Message-ID: References: <83inr2oje6.fsf@gnu.org> <83bmwuogfb.fsf@gnu.org> <878trydrbo.fsf@red-bean.com> <83a8cem1eq.fsf@gnu.org> <83zikdl7oo.fsf@gnu.org> <83y3zxkwms.fsf@gnu.org> <20161203143603.GA6921@acm.fritz.box> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1480786626 9073 195.159.176.226 (3 Dec 2016 17:37:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 17:37:06 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: kfogel@red-bean.com, Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 03 18:37:01 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cDEFA-0001SL-Es for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 18:37:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51957 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cDEFE-0001Qv-Bq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 12:37:04 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55961) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cDEEi-0001Qa-1p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 12:36:32 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cDEEh-00088A-5c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 12:36:32 -0500 Original-Received: from dancol.org ([2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3]:40136) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cDEEg-00087r-TN; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 12:36:31 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:Cc:To:From; bh=Dkkf6HJnDsaW5gyljbV/dXU3gx6xfgArhI49JyV2yDI=; b=RO0wq7wsie1Ni55uwweqB7acZTS8oO4lWXqi3RPgEfWIXlCYNNV3uU0CTqJ0RoP24cfz1IOKayqiYfLnBDyQAU1h0tObTaiJLBFyak8Snry/3J9FfVb+tX0KkjrX8mgp383bArDbaBuNqnwi4nGVl6LBHBX4P43W0NJIdLbl0C5R+aBFRXoqsQv1B+DvW7kF/MWTQTykreQ8kZ3XK1WZOgdECclelnu3Rwdqd6OI6+FQVbsuIMDxgGp1LSNIqTQ7Qu5/l5elON3/F/YqWijytxMm8hi7mrORTcnDv+HLlAA9GAC0+Z2/Yl/MFpgyDn7i6MHxmJG1sp0UWLvoq4jmjQ==; Original-Received: from [2601:602:9802:d9d1:8899:d2fd:9631:748c] (helo=dancol-glaptop0) by dancol.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cDEEe-0005fk-73; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 09:36:28 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20161203143603.GA6921@acm.fritz.box> (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Sat, 3 Dec 2016 14:36:04 +0000") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3 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:209987 Archived-At: On Sat, Dec 03 2016, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Hello, Eli. > > I haven't really been following this thread, but one tangential thing in > it jumped out at me: > > On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 02:47:07PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> > From: Daniel Colascione >> > Cc: kfogel@red-bean.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> > Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 01:34:42 -0800 > > [ .... ] > >> > What evidence would convince you that you were incorrect? > >> That's easy: a significant increase in the number of active developers >> working on the C level. > > I have made quite a lot of changes at the C level, but I'm not really a > "core C level" developer. > > However, it feels that an unusually high proportion of C level changes I > have hacked or proposed have been rejected. ("Unusual" when compared to > lisp level changes.) Examples include: > > (i) Changing the method of syntax.c scanning backwards over comments. My > changes found their way into branch comment-cache in 2016-03. Despite > this change having been extensively discussed in emacs-devel, and sort of > "approved", the final patch was never considered on its merits. The > ostensible reason was that it used a cache which wasn't the syntax-ppss > cache. I'd forgotten about that patch. It's further evidence of the trouble lurking here. How about landing that code now?