From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dan Nicolaescu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Proposal for a 22.2/trunk development model Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:01:03 -0700 Message-ID: <200706161601.l5GG13Pv014810@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> References: <6sps3z32ap.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87tztbcue9.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87lkemmrg4.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <18033.64249.816850.550250@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200706161422.l5GEMTJ5009556@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> <85odjgm0co.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1182009974 15167 80.91.229.12 (16 Jun 2007 16:06:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:06:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rgm@gnu.org, handa@m17n.org, Nick Roberts , emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, cyd@stupidchicken.com To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 16 18:06:12 2007 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 4.50) id 1Hzamx-0007jO-QQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:06:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hzamx-0006vF-Ed for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:06:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Hzaj4-0004Ux-Mb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:02:10 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Hzaj2-0004UB-LD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:02:10 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hzaj2-0004U6-Ht for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:02:08 -0400 Original-Received: from oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu ([128.195.1.41]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Hzaj0-0006Xa-GC; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:02:06 -0400 Original-Received: from mothra.ics.uci.edu (mothra.ics.uci.edu [128.195.6.93]) by oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l5GG13Pv014810; Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:01:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <85odjgm0co.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (David Kastrup's message of "Sat\, 16 Jun 2007 16\:37\:43 +0200") Original-Lines: 39 X-ICS-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ICS-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-1.44, required 5, autolearn=disabled, ALL_TRUSTED -1.44) X-ICS-MailScanner-From: dann@mothra.ics.uci.edu X-detected-kernel: Solaris 9 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:73074 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > Dan Nicolaescu writes: > > > Richard Stallman writes: > > > > > I have decided that we should not merge unicode-2 until a couple > > > of months have gone by and we know what should be done about > > > Emacs 22.2. Until then I want to avoid far-reaching changes in > > > the trunk. Please stop making a fuss about a couple of months. > > > > > > However, it is ok to add new features which are not so > > > far-reaching in their effects on the code. Even the multi-tty > > > branch could be merged in (once we decide what to do about the > > > environment). > > > > This development model would undoubtedly achieve the goal of being > > able to make a high quality 22.2 release. > > Undoubtedly? Richard is talking about the trunk, you are talking > about 22.2 which is to be done off EMACS_22_BASE. So I don't see the > two areas actually related, _unless_ one plans to _scrap_ > EMACS_22_BASE and basically copy trunk over it. Which nobody has > proposed, and which I'd consider an even worse idea than quite a few > others I have blown my top over. Your attitude is completely puzzling to me. I made a concrete, constructive proposal to RMS to try to move things in the direction that you seem to want too. Instead of waiting for his reply (as I politely asked) and try to have a constructive discussion after that, you chose to be destructive and nitpick my proposal. Sorry, but I think that a discussion along the lines you started is not going to get anywhere, so I'll stop here. Deeply disappointed, --dan