From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: participation & contribution [was: Latest changes with lisp/uni-*.el and leim/quail] Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:05:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <466a2599-43b3-4406-8bad-22cfb49c364f@default> References: <83txew8m9v.fsf@gnu.org> <837gbr8uxa.fsf@gnu.org> <87wqjqts1b.fsf@gmail.com> <83zjom5ls5.fsf@gnu.org> <5299C7FA.2080007@poczta.onet.pl> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1385852736 29614 80.91.229.3 (30 Nov 2013 23:05:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 23:05:36 +0000 (UTC) To: Jarek Czekalski , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 01 00:05:38 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VmtbW-000398-5U for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 01 Dec 2013 00:05:38 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53503 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VmtbV-0008PX-NS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:05:37 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52782) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VmtbJ-0008PL-3t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:05:33 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VmtbA-00014c-I1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:05:25 -0500 Original-Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:17683) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VmtbA-00014Y-B3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:05:16 -0500 Original-Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id rAUN5COL027824 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 30 Nov 2013 23:05:14 GMT Original-Received: from aserz7021.oracle.com (aserz7021.oracle.com [141.146.126.230]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAUN5BHO009247 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 30 Nov 2013 23:05:11 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0016.oracle.com (abhmp0016.oracle.com [141.146.116.22]) by aserz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAUN5BXi001125; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 23:05:11 GMT In-Reply-To: <5299C7FA.2080007@poczta.onet.pl> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6680.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 156.151.31.81 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:165955 Archived-At: > others may not want to waste time on commiting patches that are > not useful to them. Nothing wrong with that. Perfectly understandable. > If one says "I'm helping, but I'll never learn bzr and you have to > commit my patches if you want them", they bring a delibarate > minus to the project, decreasing other developer's time. Not at all. *If someone wants the patch* included, then it eventually needs to be committed. That's all. If no one wants it to be included, it need never be committed. No patch available to commit =3D zero. Patch available to commit =3D +1, if it has any interest at all. Patch never committed is still +1. If committed, and if the patch does any good and no harm, then +2. Nothing negative anywhere. The only negative would be if the patch got committed and did harm. No one is required to commit a patch. No one is required to review a patch. No one is required to even acknowledge that a patch has been provided, or to thank the submitter for it (believe me). > It's hard to judge for me, a newcomer, whether Dani's pluses > largely outweight minuses,=20 What minuses? None have been shown. I'm not sure any have even been claimed. In any case, I haven't seen any. Can you point to any from this thread, for instance? Or do you take the position that simply requesting a commit politely is a minus? It's not. > but in general a developer should be able to work on their own. Should be able to? Maybe, maybe not. Should have to? No. There is nothing wrong with people working together. Nothing wrong with person A signaling a problem, person B proposing a solution, person C improving on that, and person D committing it. > Still exceptions may be done for some honorable or valueable > people. Who is going to decide who is honorable or valuable? Emacs contributions, including some that are worthwhile, come as gifts from people of all sorts. Who knows which of those individuals are honorable or "valuable" people? It is the gift that should be judged for inclusion, not the giver. > It would be best if one of the developer's declared: "I'll be > commiting every patch of Dani. My time is worth less than his, so > I'll be doing it instead of him". Why every patch? Why must one person's time be "worth less" than another's, in order for the one to commit something contributed by the other? That makes no sense at all. RMS, whose time I think no one would claim is worth less than anyone else's around here, routinely fixed minor bugs, including doc bugs. He spent lots of his time on mundane cleanup and "unimportant" fixes. Likewise, Eli, BTW. > On the other hand, saying: "**someone** should be commiting it, > because his work is good" is unfair too. In this thread, NO ONE has said that ANYONE *should* commit Dani's patch. (No, I take that back. Some have insisted that it is only Dani who should commit Dani's patch.) Dani *requested* that his patch be committed, IF someone agrees that it is worthwhile. To quote Dani's request again: "It [the patch] is ok? If so, please commit it. TIA." Translation: Please review it. If you like it, you are welcome to it. Thank you in advance, if you commit it. Things are being turned around, to make it sound like it is Dani who is *demanding* that someone commit his patch. Eli accuses him of treating others "as his dutiful servants". Nothing could be further from the truth, based on what we can see in this thread, at least. Can you point to one piece of this thread that shows Dani arrogantly expecting or demanding that someone commit his patch? AFAICS, if any arrogance has been shown it has not been from Dani's corner. One might wonder why things are being turned around so. I, for one, do not know. Why paint Dani as the bad guy here? Perhaps there is a backstory that explains more (dunno), but nothing in this thread, at least, warranted the aggression dumped on him, AFAICT.