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: master 5022e27: ; Do not overwrite preexisting contents of unread-command-events Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 10:33:17 +0200 Message-ID: <87k2t6i3hu.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <20150804124300.13374.78396@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> <2qy4hr840o.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87r3nj3vbw.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1439022947 6739 80.91.229.3 (8 Aug 2015 08:35:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 08:35:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 08 10:35:46 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 1ZNzbW-0003qY-3l for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Aug 2015 10:35:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52289 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZNzbV-00064P-Eb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Aug 2015 04:35:45 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34966) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZNzbR-000644-FC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Aug 2015 04:35:42 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZNzbQ-0004gi-B8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Aug 2015 04:35:41 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:43610) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZNzbQ-0004gU-7R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Aug 2015 04:35:40 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57429 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ZNzbP-0001Nt-Cs; Sat, 08 Aug 2015 04:35:39 -0400 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 83864E0C57; Sat, 8 Aug 2015 10:33:17 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87r3nj3vbw.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (David Kastrup's message of "Tue, 04 Aug 2015 17:52:03 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:188600 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > Glenn Morris writes: > >> David Kastrup wrote: >> >>> branch: master >>> commit 5022e27dac4c13651941e425dbec5b3a2cecdae4 >>> Author: David Kastrup >>> Commit: David Kastrup >>> >>> ; Do not overwrite preexisting contents of unread-command-events >> >> Surely this change deserved to create a ChangeLog entry, rather than >> being marked with "; " to exclude that. > > It's a sort of a janitorial potential bug fix for symptoms nobody > complained about yet, distributed around dozens of files and disparate > functions in various parts of Emacs. I've posted the patch more than a > week ago on emacs-devel. No comment. I put out a reminder yesterday > that I was going to push this patch. No comment. > > A ChangeLog entry would run over several dozens of lines and take the > better part of an hour to create since C-x v a does not work with Git. > I=A0figured that nobody would even notice anyway. > > What do you propose I do now? That question was not rhetorical. I admit that the leadup may not have been the best incentive for answering it. Sorry for that. What I was saying was that my own judgment was that the next consistent option would have been a significant investment of effort that I saw no compelling justification for, so I shopped for other opinions without result. You disagree, but I don't see your take on "next consistent option". I=A0am not opposed to investing a significant additional amount of time for meeting a reasonable project objective. But I don't want to waste that time based on guesswork that might end wide off the mark. --=20 David Kastrup