Re: Development suggestions from an ENSIME developer

[phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord)]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> And I can only give you anecdotal evidence that it will make things
>> better after adoption.
>
> The number of manual actions one needs to do when processing a patch
> can be counted, and the counts can be compared.  The "normal" speed of
> each operation can also be measured.  So I see no issues of coming up
> with a more-or-less objective assessment of the proposed workflow vs
> the existing one.
>
> My problem is with having to learn a new system just because it's
> considered (or even is) "newer" or "more shiny" or presents a prettier
> graphics than the old one.  These alone are IMO not enough to justify
> the effort of learning yet another tool.

All this is true. But a lot of the costs are about discoverabillity,
learnability, and so forth. A "how many keys do I need to press" will
not cover this.


>> > Also, I think the solution should support text-mode browsers, such as
>> > Lynx or Emacs's eww on TTY frames.  IOW, anything that requires GUI
>> > and won't work otherwise is probably out of question to begin with.
>> > (This requirement is not for me personally.)
>> 
>> If that is a hard requirement, then I think we are not going to get much
>> further with a web 2.0 program. The best option is going to be somewhere
>> to host clones for developers, and then use debbugs.
>> 
>> But, it really is a hard requirement.
>
> I don't know if this is a hard requirement, it isn't mine.  I don't
> use Lynx.  I do use Emacs on a TTY, for remotely accessing other
> machines, and I do sometimes need to be able to fix bugs and commit
> changes from such a remote session.  So a solution that can be
> reasonably used from a TTY frame in Emacs or from a shell prompt will
> be welcome.
>
> Also, if a Web interface is really required for all the proposed
> alternatives, then it means I'll have to leave Emacs and fire up a Web
> browser, right?  Because EWW, as good as it is (and it is good), is
> still not up to that level, is it?


Yes, probably.

FWIW, in my use of github (which I realise is not an option here, not am
I advocating it), I use a combination of the web interface and Emacs. I
create PRs on the web, follow discussion in Gnus, and update, squash and
manipulate in Emacs. When recieving PRs I normally use the web to view
and do the merge.

Phil