From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Patches with independent changes Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:41:46 -0800 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <52E4BC3A.2030800@cs.ucla.edu> References: <8361pbg5vy.fsf@gnu.org> <52E08D31.3080801@cs.ucla.edu> <8338kffj7m.fsf@gnu.org> <52E0A0ED.4020601@cs.ucla.edu> <83y526el6z.fsf@gnu.org> <52E18EC0.7090302@cs.ucla.edu> <83lhy5ests.fsf@gnu.org> <52E2277B.9000205@cs.ucla.edu> <83bnz1eo1x.fsf@gnu.org> <52E29827.7060209@cs.ucla.edu> <83ha8tcb4z.fsf@gnu.org> <52E2EA7B.2080501@cs.ucla.edu> <83fvoccyqt.fsf@gnu.org> <52E3EDE1.9050709@cs.ucla.edu> <83mwikas8w.fsf@gnu.org> <52E42561.4080807@cs.ucla.edu> <83d2jfbe0s.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1390722138 5085 80.91.229.3 (26 Jan 2014 07:42:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 07:42:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 26 08:42:21 2014 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 1W7KMG-0001cM-Jn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 08:42:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53864 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W7KMG-0003Iw-9q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 02:42:20 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42596) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W7KM7-0003Ic-EW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 02:42:18 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W7KM0-0003Ut-0h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 02:42:11 -0500 Original-Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.62]:49762) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W7KLp-0003UI-Ip; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 02:41:53 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A79FAA60005; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:41:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BD0aj+DNv5SQ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:41:51 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.9] (pool-108-0-233-62.lsanca.fios.verizon.net [108.0.233.62]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 38EBBA60004; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:41:51 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 In-Reply-To: <83d2jfbe0s.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 131.179.128.62 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:169109 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii wrote: > A variable that becomes unused as result of > a change should be removed as part of that change. That guideline makes sense to me too. Some other software projects don't do that: their developers split such patches into pieces, one to remove the need for a variable, the other to remove the variable. To my mind this is mostly make-work, and its costs exceed its benefits, and I'm glad we don't insist on such things with Emacs. >> > you cannot chmod a file that is open ... the chmod call will fail. >> >> Where is this documented? Does the problem occur if any process has the >> file open, or only if the current process has it open? What is errno >> after the failure? This problem does not occur on POSIXish platforms; >> if it happens under Microsoft Windows the incompatibility should be >> documented (in Gnulib, if the problem is generic to GNU applications). > > Then document it, please. We shouldn't document a statement that may be mistaken. > Removal of this code _could_ have constituted an additional change > unrelated to the original bug. The patch I mentioned is simpler than the patch in trunk bzr 116116. It's not an additional change compared to 116116; on the contrary, 116116 is the one containing an additional change. That being said, I agree that we should let this code alone during the feature freeze.