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: Bug #25608 and the comment-cache branch Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 19:20:41 +0200 Message-ID: <83d1es61li.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20170202202418.GA2505@acm> <83lgtouxpf.fsf@gnu.org> <20170202215154.GB2505@acm> <83h94bvhzw.fsf@gnu.org> <20170205220045.GB2294@acm> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1486574453 6365 195.159.176.226 (8 Feb 2017 17:20:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 17:20:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 08 18:20:44 2017 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 1cbVvA-00018V-CG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 18:20:44 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60659 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cbVvF-0007t2-TP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:20:49 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40811) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cbVv9-0007sL-Hb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:20:44 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cbVv4-0001P9-UC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:20:43 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:59019) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cbVv4-0001Ov-QO; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:20:38 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2949 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1cbVv3-0005qO-VV; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:20:38 -0500 In-reply-to: <20170205220045.GB2294@acm> (message from Alan Mackenzie on Sun, 5 Feb 2017 22:00:45 +0000) 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:212138 Archived-At: > Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 22:00:45 +0000 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Alan Mackenzie > > But I need your acceptance of comment-cache to go any further. It has > taken a lot of my time to develop, and I am still hopeful of merging it > into master. If there is a sound technical reason why it should be > abandoned, that is fair enough. If it is rejected without such a > reason, I will need to reconsider my relationship with Emacs. I am > currently working (or "working") on several ambitious changes in Emacs. > One of them is restructuring the byte compiler so that error and warning > messages get the correct line number (bug #22288, etc.). If there is > the prospect of these being rejected without good reason, I am not > willing to take the risk of wasting my time on them. I would restrict > my participation in Emacs to CC Mode and simple changes in the non-C > part of Emacs which can be done in at most a very few hours. Alan, I hear you, and I'm sorry that you feel such frustration over your efforts whose results might not end up in the Emacs sources. Please understand my position: I'm not an expert on the underlying issues, neither syntax.c in general, nor syntax-ppss, and not the particular application of these to CC Mode. So when two of our best experts on these issues unanimously disagree with your proposal, I cannot dismiss their opinions and approve the merge. Their arguments are technical and sound, even though they are about the general principles of your design and not about specific details of your implementation. But that doesn't make their arguments invalid or less sound. So please don't perceive this as "rejection without sound technical reasons". As for your other work on changes in Emacs: I see no reasons to believe their review or prospects of acceptance will be related to the present issue in any way. They will be treated completely independently of this one. I can understand your fears of having those other changes rejected because of some aspect of the design or the implementation. I had my share of that when I worked on the bidi display engine. I can tell what I did to lower the probability of such an outcome: when I made major design decisions, I published them here and asked for (and received) comments. May I suggest that you try that technique as well? Doing that will IME go a long way towards identifying the problematic issues long before they are cast in written and debugged code, and thus allow you to avoid unnecessary refactoring and grief. Hoping to see many of your patches in Emacs in the years to come. TIA