From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Algorithm in electric-pair--unbalanced-strings-p unsuitable for CC Mode Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 20:54:57 +0000 Message-ID: <20190703205457.GD11238@ACM> References: <20190702131632.GA30597@ACM> <20190702160410.GB30597@ACM> <20190702182811.GC30597@ACM> <20190703105804.GA11238@ACM> <20190703133217.GC11238@ACM> <83r277az4g.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="234531"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, dgutov@yandex.ru To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 03 23:03:42 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1himPi-000yf9-BE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 23:03:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40596 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1himHy-0007mC-D3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 16:55:38 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35582) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1himHV-0007iT-JK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 16:55:10 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1himHU-0004LW-4U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 16:55:09 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:11604 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1himHT-0004KE-J8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 16:55:08 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 51888 invoked by uid 3782); 3 Jul 2019 20:55:02 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4FE15C0A.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.92.10]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 22:55:00 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 13284 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Jul 2019 20:54:57 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83r277az4g.fsf@gnu.org> X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: FreeBSD 9.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 193.149.48.1 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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:238339 Archived-At: Hello, Eli. On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 18:58:39 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 13:32:17 +0000 > > From: Alan Mackenzie > > Cc: João Távora , > > emacs-devel > > > Even so, is calling 'git show fe06f64b' too hard to do? > > Yes. As you'll have noticed, this is an adversarial debate rather than > > a constructive cooperation > It is only an adversarial debate if you two make it so. I suggest to > respond as if you don't perceive the adversarial aspects, and expect > the other side to do the same. I've been trying that. It's not been working well. > > Surely it is a matter of plain ettiquette > It is not. Showing Git SHA is perfectly okay, at least in this list. > > Besides, other people will read this post, and they'll have to remain > > mystified, or put in the work themselves. Giving a cryptic, rather than > > a meaningful, reference thus costs more time than it saves. > That ship has sailed when we switched to Git. It is not wise, to say > the least, to impregnate this discussion, which is already loaded with > emotions, with yet another emotional reaction against something that > no one can do anything about. That is not true. A policy decision could be taken now to apply to future commit references. I can understand you not wanting to lay down such a policy, however. I will continue to supply information such as date and commit message whenever I refer to a git commit, out of courtesy and consideration for the people who will read my post. They will then immediately know what I'm talking about, and have enough details to decide whether to look up the commit in git. Conversely, I will feel free to ignore a bare git commit hash, for example when I'm tired, or feeling harrassed, or the tone of the post containing it is unfriendly, or, quite bluntly, when I just can't be bothered. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).