From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Preview: portable dumper Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 00:06:21 +0200 Message-ID: <83a8cem1eq.fsf@gnu.org> References: <047a67ec-9e29-7e4e-0fb0-24c3e59b5886@dancol.org> <83zikjxt1j.fsf@gnu.org> <8360n6ruzu.fsf@gnu.org> <834m2nplmb.fsf@gnu.org> <83inr2oje6.fsf@gnu.org> <83bmwuogfb.fsf@gnu.org> <878trydrbo.fsf@red-bean.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1480716420 30963 195.159.176.226 (2 Dec 2016 22:07:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 22:07:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Karl Fogel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 02 23:06:56 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cCvyo-0006sw-OL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 23:06:54 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36709 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cCvyp-0002Wa-76 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 17:06:55 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58061) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cCvyB-0002WV-HB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 17:06:16 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cCvy7-00065R-Ib for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 17:06:15 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:34801) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cCvy7-00065N-F7; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 17:06:11 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2282 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1cCvy6-0000Eu-R8; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 17:06:11 -0500 In-reply-to: <878trydrbo.fsf@red-bean.com> (message from Karl Fogel on Fri, 02 Dec 2016 14:11:23 -0600) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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:209945 Archived-At: > From: Karl Fogel > Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 14:11:23 -0600 > > Following up to what John said, with a perspective that may be useful to Eli: Thanks, but it isn't useful. Why? because, like John, you don't think that my opinion about the preferred solution to getting rid of unexec is right. What would be useful is a perspective from someone who understands the issues and agrees with me about the preferred solution. Because only such a person can see the dilemma through my eyes, and only that person can find the right words. > When I was in a position similar to yours (one of a small group of core co-maintainers, in the Subversion project), there were a few occasions when a major technical decision went in a direction I didn't agree with. My disagreement was not of the "this will destroy the project" sort, but I did feel the decisions were poor technical choices that could be a long-term drag on the project -- creating extra maintenance work for existing developers, and creating barriers to entry for new developers. In other words, objections very similar to yours now. No, they aren't similar. In cases like the one you describe, I invariably seek a compromise or give in. It's what you call "destroy the project" thing that makes the difference. > Your value as a maintainer is not lessened if a particular decision doesn't go the way you recommended. (Of course, if maintainership becomes unenjoyable to you because of the decision, that's a different question, and only you can make that call.) "Unenjoyable"? It's intolerable. It would mean that on my watch something happened that I believe is detrimental to a project which I took upon myself to improve, and I saw it happening and didn't prevent it. Can you understand my plight?