From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Removing MULTI_KBOARD Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 01:58:01 +0200 Message-ID: <4894F489.8060902@gmail.com> References: <200807310343.m6V3h1Zo006813@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> <200807311921.m6VJLxu1016770@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> <200808011209.m71C9Tj3018356@sallyv1.ics.uci.edu> <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> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1217721506 7955 80.91.229.12 (2 Aug 2008 23:58:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 23:58:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Chong Yidong , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Nick Roberts Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 03 01:59:16 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 1KPR0E-0003hw-Vo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 03 Aug 2008 01:59:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41386 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KPQzJ-0005Rp-Vg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 02 Aug 2008 19:58:18 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KPQzF-0005QK-N5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Aug 2008 19:58:13 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KPQzF-0005P3-1G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Aug 2008 19:58:13 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57972 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KPQzE-0005Ol-SQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Aug 2008 19:58:12 -0400 Original-Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.212]:49323) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KPQzE-0004zc-BV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Aug 2008 19:58:12 -0400 Original-Received: from c83-254-151-176.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.151.176]:63623 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1KPQzB-0001OL-44; Sun, 03 Aug 2008 01:58:09 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: <18580.58502.366085.330994@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080802-0, 2008-08-02), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.151.176 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1KPQzB-0001OL-44. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1KPQzB-0001OL-44 3607e83372224ac77ca37d7875c1073d X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) 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:101978 Archived-At: Nick Roberts wrote: > > It would have been nice for Dan to mention he was removing MULTI_KBOARD, > > but I can understand the reasoning for what he did (maybe he was rushing > > for time due to the feature freeze deadline too). So let's keep his > > changes. > > Well, I can't understand the reasoning. If I was Eli, it would leave a very > bitter taste in my mouth. Maybe because we don't see one another, there is > sometimes scant regard for the feelings of others on this list, and I'm sure > this loses developers. Yes, I have been told that this has happened on the w32 side. > If the logical thing to do is remove MULTI_KBOARD, and therefore the MSDOS > port, I'm sure that after discussion Eli would see that. The outcome may > well be the same but it would be reached in a much more agreeable manner. It is a bit said that two good efforts, one from Dan and one from Eli, clash. However it is also natural that such situations arise within a complex system. I think that both Eli and Dan deserve our support here. Trying to give them that might help avoid situations like this in the future.