From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: New maintainer Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 10:30:46 +0300 Message-ID: <83k2qwcxcp.fsf@gnu.org> References: <560CCEBA.9080607@online.de> <874miapdhs.fsf@openmailbox.org> <8737xuuw2y.fsf@rabkins.net> <87lhbmkrle.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87si5r22qh.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87pp0p0zqh.fsf@red-bean.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1444404883 11282 80.91.229.3 (9 Oct 2015 15:34:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 15:34:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: John Wiegley Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 09 17:34:32 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZkZgk-0008Ig-At for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 17:34:30 +0200 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]:50925) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZkZgj-00066j-DM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:34:29 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39251 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZkZgj-0003bK-9N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:34:29 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34614) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZkS8e-0006kX-5K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 03:30:49 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZkS8a-0004GF-Tr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 03:30:48 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout27.012.net.il ([80.179.55.183]:37552) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZkS8a-0004FR-Gn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 03:30:44 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout27.012.net.il by mtaout27.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NVX00O00Z44NH00@mtaout27.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 10:26:49 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.94.185.246]) by mtaout27.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NVX00HT7ZCPSR70@mtaout27.012.net.il>; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 10:26:49 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.183 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 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:191078 Archived-At: > From: "John Wiegley" > Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 17:14:02 -0700 > > >>>>> Karl Fogel writes: > > > So if at this point you were to say that, as far as being an Emacs > > maintainer goes, you understand and are willing to abide by the priorities > > Richard has articulated, even though you disagree with them, that would > > settle an important question. Or if you don't think you can abide by them, > > in your work as maintainer, that would be useful to know too (though it > > would probably result in you not being the maintainer). > > I'm pretty sure that if it came up in a significant way, I wouldn't be able to > stand by it. The insistence on Bazaar over Git, for example, caused me to stop > contributing to Emacs a few years back. And I've been unhappy about the DSO > situation since around 1999. Very glad to see these two getting resolved! It's too bad, IMO, that you evidently assign so much importance to issues with which you disagree. Cooperation is about finding the areas of agreement, which are certainly vast in this case, and using them for the common good, rather than poking at the few disagreements. > What I wonder is whether Richard and I could reach a compromise if it happens > while we're working together. I'm not saying everything has to go my way; but > if I see something that needs to happen for the sake of users, would we be > able to find an alternate path? It's a question no one will be able to answer in advance. These issues are decided on a case by case basis, depending on the balance of advantages and disadvantages in each specific case. Sometimes your suggestion could be accepted even without a compromise, sometimes there could be a compromise, and sometimes no compromise will be possible. You will have to decide up front whether a possibility of no compromise in some situations is something you will be able to live with. This is something that IMO sheds light not only on your relations with Richard and the FSF, but also on your relations with other contributors here, because such situations will arise there as well. > If that timeframe is too long for a decision, I'm willing to help out Emacs > until it becomes a real problem. There are plenty of areas where no > disagreement exists at all. Exactly. And my question is: why not concentrate on those areas, and simply "bypass" (a.k.a. "ignore") the rest?