From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: multi-tty branch created Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 17:34:13 +0200 Message-ID: <86sl9wpytm.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> References: <87sla0rgs4.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <85abw8pyk7.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85646wpuqn.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1179329663 12695 80.91.229.12 (16 May 2007 15:34:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 15:34:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?utf-8?Q?K=C3=A1roly_L=C5=91rentey?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 16 17:34:21 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HoLW9-00010u-Eq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 May 2007 17:34:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HoLe8-0000YD-Vx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 May 2007 11:42:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HoLe5-0000WJ-Om for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 May 2007 11:42:33 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HoLe3-0000Vz-S8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 May 2007 11:42:33 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HoLe3-0000Vm-M0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 May 2007 11:42:31 -0400 Original-Received: from pc3.berlin.powerweb.de ([62.67.228.11]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HoLW3-0005Uk-3t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 May 2007 11:34:15 -0400 Original-Received: from quinscape.de (pd95b0fdb.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.91.15.219]) by pc3.berlin.powerweb.de (8.9.3p3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA17010 for ; Wed, 16 May 2007 17:34:05 +0200 X-Delivered-To: Original-Received: (qmail 7391 invoked from network); 16 May 2007 15:34:13 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO lola.quinscape.zz) ([10.0.3.43]) (envelope-sender ) by ns.quinscape.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 16 May 2007 15:34:13 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id BC0BF8F230; Wed, 16 May 2007 17:34:13 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22K=C3=A1roly_L?= =?utf-8?Q?=C5=91rentey=22's?= message of "Wed\, 16 May 2007 17\:04\:25 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/23.0.51 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:71178 Archived-At: K=C3=A1roly L=C5=91rentey writes: > Juanma Barranquero wrote: > >> Then it should continue to be done in the multi-tty branch until >> merging it to the trunk does not represent a regression. > > I don't believe it represents a regression in its current form. As > we know, Windows support is broken, but thankfully people are > working on that now. Uh what? In its current form, Windows support is broken but it does not represent a regression? We must have different definitions of "regression" then. Actually, at the moment emacsclient does not compile which _is_ a regression. And such regressions will _certainly_ occur until we get this to compile on all platforms. make[1]: Entering directory `/rep/emacs-build/lib-src' gcc -D_BSD_SOURCE -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../src -I/rep/emacs/lib-src -I/rep/= emacs/lib-src/../src -Wl,-znocombreloc -D_BSD_SOURCE -g -O2 -fno-crossju= mping /rep/emacs/lib-src/emacsclient.c -DVERSION=3D"\"23.0.51\"" -lc -o em= acsclient /rep/emacs/lib-src/emacsclient.c: In function =E2=80=98handle_sigcont=E2=80= =99: /rep/emacs/lib-src/emacsclient.c:960: error: =E2=80=98s=E2=80=99 undeclared= (first use in this function) /rep/emacs/lib-src/emacsclient.c:960: error: (Each undeclared identifier is= reported only once /rep/emacs/lib-src/emacsclient.c:960: error: for each function it appears i= n.) /rep/emacs/lib-src/emacsclient.c: In function =E2=80=98handle_sigtstp=E2=80= =99: /rep/emacs/lib-src/emacsclient.c:984: error: =E2=80=98s=E2=80=99 undeclared= (first use in this function) make[1]: *** [emacsclient] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/rep/emacs-build/lib-src' make: *** [lib-src] Error 2 > If there is a good chance that Emacs 23 will be released without > multi-tty, then of course things are different. I think people > should look at the code and report if it is basically sound or not. > If not, then it's better to have that decided early than to waste > more time developing it. My first impression is the following: there are serious design and use problems that need to be addressed before finalizing the merge. It would appear, however, that multi-tty went through several stages in the course of its development that were rather close to what would constitute a robust design. So scrapping the branch and reimplementing from scratch would appear quite nonsensical, and the design discussion will also be helped by you having actual experience with several approaches. > You can also decide to keep a subset of multi-tty changes (C-level > changes, Lisp interface, emacsclient improvements, environment > implementation, Lisp package adaptations, etc.) and > discard/reimplement the rest. For example, David has already > expressed his dissatisfaction with the environment implementation. I am still putting together some more detailed critique. Note that getting me satisfied is not the same as getting everybody else satisfied, but of course addressing points raised by me on the list will help your case also with other people choosing to mostly listen at the moment. It is quite too early to predict how things will progress. My impression is that the multi-tty branch is on a good track (and it quite helps that you are not trying to block contributions and criticism). That's not enough to put forward a plan, but it's a good sign. --=20 David Kastrup