From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alain Schneble Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Asynchronous DNS Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 20:35:13 +0100 Message-ID: <86lh6d3lhq.fsf@realize.ch> References: <83io27ytu3.fsf@gnu.org> <87k2mmzkry.fsf@gnus.org> <83k2mlyet8.fsf@gnu.org> <87lh71nriy.fsf@gnus.org> <8637t8opla.fsf@realize.ch> <871t8skg6c.fsf@gnus.org> <86y4b0n5q2.fsf@realize.ch> <87fux7gb7o.fsf@gnus.org> <83wpqjvd2f.fsf@gnu.org> <87zivfobn4.fsf@gnus.org> <86y4ao5g1c.fsf@realize.ch> <87r3ggdo9f.fsf@gnus.org> <86twlb5yl4.fsf@realize.ch> <83d1rzz1mu.fsf@gnu.org> <86egcc49qu.fsf@realize.ch> <87io1k41cg.fsf@gnus.org> <86a8mv41s5.fsf@realize.ch> <8660xj40ky.fsf@realize.ch> <87r3g6iybb.fsf@gnus.org> <87bn7ahiit.fsf@gnus.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1456083385 7550 80.91.229.3 (21 Feb 2016 19:36:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 19:36:25 +0000 (UTC) To: Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 21 20:36:17 2016 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 1aXZnk-0008CX-UP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 20:36:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43595 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aXZnh-0002QR-4M for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 14:36:13 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49405) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aXZnN-0002P8-Ir for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 14:35:57 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aXZnI-0005tC-Jb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 14:35:53 -0500 Original-Received: from clientmail.realize.ch ([46.140.89.53]:1269) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aXZnI-0005sa-7E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 14:35:48 -0500 Original-Received: from rintintin.hq.realize.ch.lan.rit ([192.168.0.105]) by clientmail.realize.ch ; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 20:35:36 +0100 Original-Received: from MYNGB (192.168.66.64) by rintintin.hq.realize.ch.lan.rit (192.168.0.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.516.32; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 20:35:16 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87bn7ahiit.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Sun, 21 Feb 2016 14:03:22 +1100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (windows-nt) X-ClientProxiedBy: rintintin.hq.realize.ch.lan.rit (192.168.0.105) To rintintin.hq.realize.ch.lan.rit (192.168.0.105) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Windows NT kernel [generic] X-Received-From: 46.140.89.53 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:200399 Archived-At: Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > But it would be nice if somebody could do a code review before merging > to master. Should I just post the diff here? It's rather large, but > mainly because many humongous functions have been split up into smaller, > but still too-large, functions... FWIW, I just wanted to say that I will for sure review the changes at least to enhance my personal knowledge in that area. But as I do not yet have any expertise in "GNU Emacs core", this might be of very little value for you. So you for sure won't trust me as a reviewer and I think you shouldn't either, really. But anyway, I'm trying to get into it for the future... ;) BTW, I'll try to make at least set-process-coding-system non-blocking as an exercise. If that won't be patched by somebody else in the meantime, I'll be happy to supply a patch for it in case I really succeed. But that could be applied to master after having merged the async-dns branch back to master. For me, posting a separate patch of all the changes from the async-dns branch isn't needed. It's so easy to follow the changes in the branch directly.