From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tom Lord Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.comp.version-control.arch.user Subject: Re: arch taglines for emacs Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:59:19 -0700 (PDT) Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <200308241859.LAA05271@morrowfield.regexps.com> References: <200308231402.HAA00501@morrowfield.regexps.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1061751760 26711 80.91.224.253 (24 Aug 2003 19:02:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 19:02:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 24 21:02:38 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19r08M-00010M-00 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2003 21:02:38 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19r0DY-0003Jt-00 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2003 21:08:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19r05e-0008Do-7m for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:59:50 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19r058-0008Cr-Te for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:59:18 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19r04c-0007wx-On for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:59:17 -0400 Original-Received: from [65.234.195.45] (helo=morrowfield.regexps.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19r04b-0007uP-BH; Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:58:46 -0400 Original-Received: (from lord@localhost) by morrowfield.regexps.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id LAA05271; Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:59:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lord@morrowfield.regexps.com) Original-To: miles@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org In-reply-to: (message from Richard Stallman on Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:00:21 -0400) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:16130 gmane.comp.version-control.arch.user:3493 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:16130 [Please don't reply without trimming the recipients. This has been CROSS POSTED.] > From: various people [in various messages, on and off list: proposed alternative syntaxes for tags affirmation that multi-line tags are ugly possibility of using the > /*arch-tag: 53bb84c6-dee0-46c6-a275-2db144993d89*/ ] I'll leave this pretty much up to you guys ("To:" line). Here's my position and observations: 1) I think everybody now agrees that a strictly upward compatible alternative tagline syntax is desirable. 2) It sure would be smart, imo, to help make emacs developers happy given the size of the project, it's position within the GNU project, and this early effort to try out arch by miles. Basically, I think this is a good thing for the arch project to do. 3) An alternative syntax is pretty easy -- if need be, I'm sure we can nail down what to do in that regard within 2 days of deciding too and implement it within 5. There's no big need to back-and-forth over the details until then or across multiple lists. Most of the suggestions have been just fine -- to an extent, it's an arbitrary choice. 4) I'm willing to do any of the following: a) nothing (for now). You decide to use the current `arch-tag:' syntax as shown above. b) go into a quick design/merge cycle with miles to put in a new syntax sooner rather than later. c) put in a new syntax myself. Obviously (c) is "least desirable" but, in absolute terms, it's not that much work. (a) would be my choice by default but (2) and (3) mean I'm happy to to do (b) or (c), too. In favor of (a): going that route poses the least risk to my degrees of freedom doing other changes to the "inventory" subsystem of arch going forward -- but I'll qualify that by saying that I don't see the risk of not doing (a) as huge. So, tell me what to do to help keep Emacs folks happy. Your call. -t