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: emacs IDE features Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 19:47:15 +0300 Message-ID: <83si58i0oc.fsf@gnu.org> References: <561A19AB.5060001@cumego.com> <87io6dl0h0.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87lhb82qxc.fsf@gmail.com> <87oag4jk74.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87k2qrki45.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83oag3oosv.fsf@gnu.org> <6909324d6de8929192a27fc0be8267d4@mail.iq.pl> <561D6773.4080003@cumego.com> <87d1wijwfs.fsf@fastmail.fm> <87eggxemca.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83y4f23puw.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1445186863 20307 80.91.229.3 (18 Oct 2015 16:47:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:47:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: sacha@sachachua.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: John Wiegley Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 18 18:47:35 2015 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 1Znr7N-00051A-Ru for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:47:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34629 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Znr7N-0003hA-5d for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:47:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39196) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Znr79-0003h1-Na for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:47:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Znr76-0005IN-HA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:47:19 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:38187) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Znr76-0005IC-9J for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:47:16 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NWF00300D567500@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 19:47:15 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.94.185.246]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NWF003AGDAQ2920@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 19:47:15 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.172 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:191971 Archived-At: > From: John Wiegley > Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 16:51:48 -0700 > Cc: Sacha Chua > > >> - Each supported platform > > > This needs more detailed description. What is a "platform"? We have Posix > > systems with and without GTK/Lucid/Motif, with and without Cairo. Are those > > the same platform, or do we need experts for each toolkit? Are all Posix > > systems the same "platforms", or do we need separate experts on GNU/Linux, > > *BSD, Solaris, and Irix? > > I suppose these dividing lines need to be drawn "as needed" and based on > available volunteers. If a group of platforms can be served by one person > (say, the *BSD family), great; if it becomes too big a job, or we've divided > it wrong, we make a change. I agree. The experience till now, if I try to summarize it, was that we are much more likely to find experts in specific aspects (like X, GTK, etc.) than experts in everything that happens on some OS. > >> - Performance > > > I don't think this should be a separate team. Each core team should be > > responsible for performance in their area, because solution of any > > performance problems in each area is specific to that area. > > I agree, but I also don't agree. > > I'd like to nominate a "performance czar", whose job is to construct and > maintain a performance benchmarking suite, run on all platforms as part of the > build, and whose output would be tracked over time to detect degradations and > inform us of the impact of changes. I agree, but then we should probably strive to have a similar team for the test suite, which already exists.