Re: Further CC-mode changes

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>]

Eli Zaretskii writes:
 > > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
 > > Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 08:40:25 +0900
 > > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
 > > 
 > > I think it's ironic that when it comes to the XEmacs support Alan
 > > wants to provide, Glenn is all for "aggressive modernization" and
 > > devil take the hindmost, but when it comes to the same policy toward
 > > the git repo Eric wants to provide, he's the loudest of footdraggers.
 > 
 > That's unfair to Glenn, and is evidently based on just 2 data points
 > out of many more.
 > 
 > So let me add 2 more from my failing memory:
 > 
 >   . Glenn also lobbied hard to remove the old MS-Windows configury
 >     (which I objected, and therefore it didn't happen yet)
 > 
 >   . Glenn suggested that the trunk relies on GNU Make, which did
 >     happen, and made many useful changes which that enabled

I consider those both to support my claim, which is that if it reduces
the amount of work he needs to do to achieve a unit of Emacs
development in the future, he's in favor of investing both his time,
and users' time and inconvenience, in the change.  If somebody else
does the same, but it inconveniences him, he complains.  That's
*ironic*, no matter how dedicated Glenn may be to Emacs development.

Of course I'm -1 on anything that makes it even harder for XEmacs to
catch up to current reality.  That shouldn't bother core Emacs people
too much, although I'm glad it's a consideration for Alan and many
other package developers.  And you shouldn't be surprised that this is
the point that piqued me enough to speak up.  But ...

My real point is that bzr has held Emacs back for long enough.  Both
Eric's obsession with the 36-24-36 conversion and Glenn's insistance
that everything that is part of the bzr workflow be done for git
*before* the switchover is executed are unfortunate.

 > If you consider the inordinate amount of work Glenn personally
 > invested in making bzr usage convenient in Emacs, you might come up
 > with an alternative explanation to his alleged "footdragging".

Sure.  The labor theory of value: if I worked so hard on it, it must
be worth keeping.  Thing is, bzr was a mistake from day 1, and it went
mostly downhill from there.  The consequent duplication of effort was
not Eric's fault!