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: [PATCH v1] Let input queue deal gracefully with up-events Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 22:42:30 +0100 Message-ID: <87r3u4xcft.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <20150128145849.GA5107@acm.acm> <1422458343-12633-1-git-send-email-dak@gnu.org> <87egq4z2zr.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87vbjgxip8.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87a90sf4o9.fsf@violet.siamics.net> 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 1423172584 4076 80.91.229.3 (5 Feb 2015 21:43:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 21:43:04 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 05 22:43:04 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 1YJUCU-0003KF-RB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 22:43:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45693 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YJUCU-0004Ku-Af for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:43:02 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58410) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YJUCE-0004Jw-Qb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:42:48 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YJUCC-0004uX-Ni for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:42:46 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:57734) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YJUCC-0004uT-LO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:42:44 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36677 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YJUCC-0007TP-67 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:42:44 -0500 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 534D9E6B62; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 22:42:30 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <87a90sf4o9.fsf@violet.siamics.net> (Ivan Shmakov's message of "Thu, 05 Feb 2015 21:07:34 +0000") 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:182481 Archived-At: Ivan Shmakov writes: >>>>>> 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/ insta= ll the > patch (because of=E2=80=A6)=E2=80=9D as the outcomes of the review proce= ss. > > 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. Not at all. Comments are part of a change, and the review process resulted in "the change is not OK. Should anybody be so unreasonable to install it in this form, it will be necessary for Stefan to clean up afterwards". Since the original author refuses to make the suggested changes (as opposed to other change suggestions he heeded) because of being inaccessible to reason, these changes have to be made by reasonable people instead. A developer unwilling to keep the Emacs repository in acceptable state should not have write access. I can, of course, offer to make the requested change myself, in a separate commit specifying Stefan's authorship, with a commit message of his choosing, and then push both commits. However, I would then also file a bug report suggesting to revert the commit attributed to Stefan, referring to my explanation why it is wrong. I think we are better off sparing ourselves such silliness. I am able to work around this shortcoming in the binary by messing with the modifier cache internals from the Lisp side. It's ugly and does not lend itself to further extensibility, but it's not an ultimate showstopper. > 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. Comments are an important part of code crucially affecting its maintainability. So it _is_ the case. --=20 David Kastrup