From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ivan Shmakov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] Let input queue deal gracefully with up-events Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 21:07:34 +0000 Message-ID: <87a90sf4o9.fsf@violet.siamics.net> References: <20150128145849.GA5107@acm.acm> <1422458343-12633-1-git-send-email-dak@gnu.org> <87egq4z2zr.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87vbjgxip8.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1423170500 1268 80.91.229.3 (5 Feb 2015 21:08:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 21:08:20 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 05 22:08:16 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 1YJTeo-0002n8-Hc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 22:08:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45589 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YJTen-0001II-Po for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:08:13 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52383) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YJTeZ-0001Hd-R9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:08:01 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YJTeV-0002cQ-DU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:07:59 -0500 Original-Received: from fely.am-1.org ([2a01:4f8:d15:1b86::2]:38130) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YJTeV-0002ab-5G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:07:55 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=siamics.net; s=a2013295; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date:Sender:References:Subject:To:From; bh=uzjS+mMmAGrqKtGcp6RxBukmPsfeS/d81mdQ6fkdpCI=; b=kJlc5y94DsIcG59cR0s7VGx8EpyzuhKy9LRDSvmCa4RkKZ2oizBwcb15+XMdG+32lxXCnuGZPXCgZ9yjMF3rO4AOhRf55OqxBLipMBgPfh1eTq8FqGg0kkA95i5DqiEu4prysqELyxHrnneaBwQdBIQbn8hy/Jzv5+F2xxZvJ0o=; Original-Received: from [2a02:2560:6d4:26ca::1:1d] (helo=violet.siamics.net) by fely.am-1.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YJTeI-0001X9-Lu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 21:07:43 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=violet.siamics.net) by violet.siamics.net with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YJTeB-0004kK-Dc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 04:07:35 +0700 Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <87vbjgxip8.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (David Kastrup's message of "Thu, 05 Feb 2015 20:27:15 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a01:4f8:d15:1b86::2 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:182480 Archived-At: >>>>> David Kastrup writes: >>>>> Stefan Monnier writes: >>> . Judging >>> from the number of wishlist items in the tracker including a patch, >>> that does not appear to increase its chances of getting applied but >>> at least it is then rotting in the proper place. >> What would increase the chances, would be you requesting >> write-access, of course ;-) > Basically you say that the patch submission and vetting process is > fundamentally broken and useless and that people should ignore the > developer list and bug tracker and just dump their code into the > repository instead and see whether others want to fix it. I=E2=80=99m unsure if this comment of mine will help or not, but I /do/ see the difference between =E2=80=9Cthe change is OK and I will install the patch=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cthe change is OK, but I will /not/ install= the patch (because of=E2=80=A6)=E2=80=9D as the outcomes of the review process. In this particular case, the review process (AIUI) resulted in the latter, due to the disagreement on the wording of a single comment in the code. However, given the =E2=80=9Cthe change is OK=E2=80=9D part, I see no reason for an interested party to refrain from pushing the change, either simply changing that single line of contention (so to say) him- or herself along the way, =E2=80=93 or leaving it to the party interested in /that/ change. Should the review process result in the =E2=80=9Cthe change is NOT OK=E2= =80=9D outcome, it would indeed be inappropriate for a developer to push the change. But that=E2=80=99s not the case for #19746. [=E2=80=A6] --=20 FSF associate member #7257 http://boycottsystemd.org/ =E2=80=A6 3013 B6A0= 230E 334A