From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Test Alternative initialize scheme Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:53:52 +0300 Message-ID: <83y3hzyy73.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20180404231211.GB31955@mail.akwebsoft.com> <86zi2g2lzp.fsf@zoho.com> <834lkn1ptu.fsf@gnu.org> <6c225530-de48-2a4a-d6d9-dece81012cfc@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1523105541 25951 195.159.176.226 (7 Apr 2018 12:52:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 12:52:21 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 07 14:52:16 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@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 1f4nKJ-0006aA-8a for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 07 Apr 2018 14:52:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55768 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f4nMO-0007re-TZ for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 07 Apr 2018 08:54:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33184) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f4nLy-0007r6-Ho for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Apr 2018 08:53:59 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f4nLt-0003LK-Mx for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Apr 2018 08:53:58 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:46062) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f4nLt-0003LB-J2 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Apr 2018 08:53:53 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4395 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1f4nLs-0001ZF-6G for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Apr 2018 08:53:52 -0400 In-reply-to: <6c225530-de48-2a4a-d6d9-dece81012cfc@gmail.com> (message from Nikolay Kudryavtsev on Sat, 7 Apr 2018 15:38:51 +0300) 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: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:116391 Archived-At: > From: Nikolay Kudryavtsev > Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 15:38:51 +0300 > > While I agree about the lack of upstream communication, I don't see the > situation changing any time soon, nor them dying. One reason is > (understandably) slow pace of upstream development Upstream development is not slow: just look at the number of commits per months or even per week. Many bugs get fixed within days if not hours of them being reported. What is slow is the rate of releasing official versions. Whether that matters to many users, I don't know, what with quite a few following the development branch. > for kit devs it's often much easier to provide a patch downstream, > since upstream fix may not be coming until one or more major > versions. I see no contradiction here: one could do both. The advantage of talking to the development team, apart of fixing the problems in future releases, is that the workarounds will be of higher quality and will run smaller risk of introducing new bugs because the person who proposed a workaround missed some aspects of the problem or didn't understand well enough the true nature of the issue. It's a win-win situation, and the effort of reporting an issue upstream is not that significant.