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: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 18:03:23 +0200 Message-ID: <83y4oyycz8.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> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1421683424 6041 80.91.229.3 (19 Jan 2015 16:03:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:03:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 19 17:03:44 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 1YDEnm-0007sy-Br for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 17:03:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38263 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YDEnl-0004KX-Ol for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:03:41 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33566) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YDEni-0004KS-Jw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:03:39 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YDEne-0006u9-Fj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:03:38 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout29.012.net.il ([80.179.55.185]:34950) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YDEne-0006tw-7g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:03:34 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout29.012.net.il by mtaout29.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NIF00200LG80X00@mtaout29.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 18:00:13 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout29.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NIF00IJ3LSD1BA0@mtaout29.012.net.il>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 18:00:13 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <54BC18B9.50202@cs.ucla.edu> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.185 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:181439 Archived-At: > Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 12:34:01 -0800 > From: Paul Eggert > CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > IOW, basically the request is to post a short note about things you > know anyway. The only extra work is composing the message itself. > > But as I mentioned, I don't know these things, as I don't look at the MS-Windows code when I make changes like that. It's not reasonable to expect developers to search all modules every time they make a change that could conceivably be modified and/or adapted and/or adjusted to some other module. We already have too much to do, and this extra bureaucracy's cost would outweigh its benefit. It's a small overhead, yes. What's the alternative, though? Doing nothing means leaving the parts you side-stepped to bit-rot and generate bug reports, which is a maintenance burden we'd like to avoid, so it's clearly not acceptable. Leaving it to others to discover the places that were omitted, without any guidance as to how to identify them is too error-prone, so will again cause bugs. Another alternative would be for you to describe how you searched for relevant places in the modules you did review and change -- either by presenting the scripts and/or commands you used, or as a plain-text description of the course of actions needed to identify those places. I think this would be more work for you, but if you prefer it that way, it's probably okay, too.