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: Removing MULTI_KBOARD Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:01:51 -0700 Message-ID: <200808232101.m7NL1pQT022233@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> References: <200808020655.m726tvsI017108@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> <200808020927.m729Rnov027876@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> <489432B0.2000305@gnu.org> <87r697qzn3.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <18580.58502.366085.330994@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200808040115.m741Fp6T000371@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> <200808231824.m7NIOcqI011373@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> <200808231913.m7NJDQxZ002663@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1219525519 3028 80.91.229.12 (23 Aug 2008 21:05:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:05:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 23 23:06:10 2008 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 1KX0It-0004Xd-41 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:05:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51138 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KX0Hv-0006zL-Au for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:04:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KX0Hr-0006z3-Bb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:04:43 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KX0Hp-0006yq-QB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:04:42 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57098 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KX0Hp-0006ym-N4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:04:41 -0400 Original-Received: from sallyv1.ics.uci.edu ([128.195.1.109]:48060) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA1:24) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KX0Hl-0004fK-0U; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:04:37 -0400 X-ICS-MailScanner-Watermark: 1220130115.44739@ZBI6HAux20zb2S36kiQyAg Original-Received: from mothra.ics.uci.edu (mothra.ics.uci.edu [128.195.6.93]) by sallyv1.ics.uci.edu (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7) with ESMTP id m7NL1pQT022233; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:01:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:15:03 +0300") Original-Lines: 37 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: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) 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:102896 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > > From: Dan Nicolaescu > > Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:13:24 -0700 > > > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > > > > From: Dan Nicolaescu > > > > Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > > Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:24:38 -0700 > > > > > > > > Was the removed MULTI_KBOARD code actually needed? > > > > > > I don't know. I debugged the current code, and never looked back, > > > because I knew it was pointless, and because in my experience > > > comparing with older versions is not an efficient way of debugging a > > > program. It's all in the logs and in CVS, if you really want to know. > > > > So you are in effect saying that you preemptive attack was baseless and > > without any technical justification (the HR approach was so wrong that's > > not even worth disscussing). Refusing to provide a technical > > justification after so many requests is quite telling. Thank you. > > Look, Dan, it's quite clear that you want to pick up this fight right > where you left off. Unfounded accusations as usual. I was just stating facts. > But I'm done fighting. The code and the logs are there for everyone > to see and study, and they speak for themselves. They are the > technical justification you are asking for, as far as I'm concerned. > Whatever conclusions you draw from that is your own business and > responsibility. You are just repeating yourself. Still no facts. But yes, I am done talking about this, and with you in general because it's pointless.