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: Omitting Windows-specific parts from infrastructure changes Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:49:28 +0200 Message-ID: <83y4ovvoyv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <838uh32gpg.fsf@gnu.org> <54B9D960.1000001@cs.ucla.edu> <834mrp24b1.fsf@gnu.org> <54BBF6E7.3090802@cs.ucla.edu> <83a91gymld.fsf@gnu.org> <54BC08B2.8070302@cs.ucla.edu> <837fwjzx5f.fsf@gnu.org> <54BC18B9.50202@cs.ucla.edu> <83y4oyycz8.fsf@gnu.org> <54BD4657.3010202@cs.ucla.edu> <83egqqy637.fsf@gnu.org> <54BD81C4.1070109@cs.ucla.edu> <833875xvin.fsf@gnu.org> <54BEC86A.7060605@cs.ucla.edu> <83d268w2w9.fsf@gnu.org> <54BFE299.3060600@cs.ucla.edu> <833874vx1e.fsf@gnu.org> <54C00076.1020406@cs.ucla.edu> <87y4ovsxqj.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1421873397 25913 80.91.229.3 (21 Jan 2015 20:49:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 20:49:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 21 21:49:56 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 1YE2Dp-0007eX-8q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:49:53 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50112 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YE2Do-00070T-En for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:49:52 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45361) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YE2Db-00070N-Nr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:49:40 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YE2Da-00019w-Ps for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:49:39 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:63963) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YE2DV-00017q-Ch; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:49:33 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NIJ00M00OE63400@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:49:32 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NIJ00LZQOIJUF80@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:49:32 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <87y4ovsxqj.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> 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:181530 Archived-At: > From: David Kastrup > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:08:20 +0100 > > Emacs is developed with a distributed version control system so working > on private changes is perfectly possible without affecting the common > public repository. > > Where a change requires involving multiple platform maintainers, it is > easily possible to first propose/provide the change in a branch where > the respective platform developers able to test or cater for a change > can prepare such changes without affecting the usability of the master > branch for other developers. That's certainly a possibility. But it, too, assumes some minimal level of cooperation between the platform maintainers. At the very least, the idea and perhaps also the details of the change should be published. It makes no sense to ask others to guess how to find which places on their platforms need change from large diffs. > > Let's drop the discussion, as we're not making any progress (quite the > > reverse, I'm afraid). > > While it does not appear that you've changed the stance of either of you > two in any way, at least others became aware of the issue and of your > inability to come to an agreement. That makes it more likely that > others will try contributing to a resolution in case the problem > reappears. I hope so, because I've exhausted all the ideas for compromise I had, and they all have been rejected.