From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ken Raeburn Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: please consider emacs-unicode for pervasive changes Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:08:58 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <200208090754.g797s6s11972@rum.cs.yale.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1029182964 9690 127.0.0.1 (12 Aug 2002 20:09:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 20:09:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Dave Love , emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17eLVD-0002WB-00 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 22:09:23 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17eLtO-0006Os-00 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 22:34:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17eLW5-0004z5-00; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:10:17 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17eLV2-0004sv-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:09:12 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17eLV0-0004sY-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:09:12 -0400 Original-Received: from 208-59-178-90.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.178.90] helo=raeburn.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17eLV0-0004sM-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:09:10 -0400 Original-Received: from kal-el.raeburn.org (kal-el.raeburn.org [2002:d03b:b25a:1:201:2ff:fe23:e26d] (may be forged)) by raeburn.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g7CK8wf07178; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:08:58 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from raeburn by kal-el.raeburn.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17eLUo-0005j2-00; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:08:58 -0400 Original-To: "Stefan Monnier" In-Reply-To: <200208090754.g797s6s11972@rum.cs.yale.edu> ("Stefan Monnier"'s message of "Fri, 09 Aug 2002 03:54:05 -0400") Original-Lines: 40 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) Emacs/21.1.50 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:6482 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:6482 "Stefan Monnier" writes: > I think Dave is right in trying to make people aware of the problem > and that the merging should not be blindly always imposed on the same > side. There should be enough cooperation that the merge is done by > the people who can do it most easily (and thus reliably) and that > depends on the actual change. Agreed. > In the case of a rename (or other changes like the ones done for Guile), > the one making the change is better prepared to apply it to other branches > because understanding the code that's changed is not really > necessary. True, but I'm concerned about stepping on toes in "their" development branch. If the people "in charge of" the unicode branch say yes, they want all these changes, okay, I can do it. But they haven't said that. Dave asked for the unicode branch to be considered for pervasive changes, but said, "I don't know if handa would like to be consulted beforehand". I haven't seen any email from handa on this, so I won't take this as a go-ahead yet, either in general or for the specific changes I've made recently. I sent both of them email a couple weeks ago showing the string-macro changes as they would apply to the unicode branch (as it was at that time), asking if they wanted them applied, but I'm still waiting to hear back. > Maybe Ken should base its work on the emacs-unicode branch so it > doesn't need to worry about another branch. Only on the unicode branch, which will complicate the merging process for whoever does it, especially since most of the automated changes are done for now, or on both? I'd gotten the impression from email a while ago that it wasn't ready for daily use, but maybe that's changed. I don't want to be developing solely on a branch I can't effectively test. Ken