From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lennart Borgman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Efforts to attract more users? Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 05:13:40 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1278818049 11331 80.91.229.12 (11 Jul 2010 03:14:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:14:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "fplemma@gmail.com" , "emacs-devel@gnu.org" , "rms@gnu.org" , "joakim@verona.se" , christian.lynbech@tieto.com To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jul 11 05:14:07 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXmzX-0000fE-9n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 05:14:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51826 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OXmzW-0003JI-Eu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 23:14:06 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43360 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OXmzS-0003JB-Le for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 23:14:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXmzR-0001Ja-Hp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 23:14:02 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ey0-f169.google.com ([209.85.215.169]:49207) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXmzR-0001JS-9P; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 23:14:01 -0400 Original-Received: by eydd26 with SMTP id d26so464160eyd.0 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 20:14:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Ggl52DWKi3yyuEztckfeE0GozZKwHfqQ2gZB2OOnI6U=; b=mDzhqAmd7cUE/xdb0TVx+i4MENt5VUzXzDASf4BuWOgx7EBfkdmnfjdJLsfJGcw2RK TqBHn3l0sBjz+jZgzOoUgHbaKYsP4Cyo2S05g6HIEGqNEs2OJ7jz0wt7qEnhTNeokpRJ Uhr3oukc8VYVB1UikJwXlKtO6huqOAdcrzxq8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=j+06dda9V1c/0uCYXoHF0Fd+4TcHWPXwIqaP50vA3Ok5+TQHI+KCo1jUxodw5e4aTr L5IuIzBiogR1CnaLtxGKV1Estk50uOSdwxeLBQro35nZaBSBt6nG3hczUnMbpK/4Drxk mwmHyoJPd/5KEbo+eXEcMHcaVzvu6Y0OvALe4= Original-Received: by 10.213.33.133 with SMTP id h5mr1891562ebd.83.1278818040265; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 20:14:00 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.213.15.132 with HTTP; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 20:13:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:127027 Archived-At: On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Juanma Barranquero wrote: > > Obviously we remember it quite differently. Let's drop the issue. Fine with me. >> Maybe the big problem was that I did not commit this myself. > > Only if trying to reach consensus is seen as a big problem... I was not talking of that problem. So it is not about that. >> Just that this type of cooperation means much more >> work. > > Much more work than what? Than when you do the commits yourself. > You're basically saying that you can't be > bothered to spend time discussing changes, so the answers you see are, > either other people spends the time, or you commit the changes even if > you suspect they wouldn't likely be accepted as is, or in some cases > you know they are actively opposed. Not at all. I am talking about the technical difficulties with cooperation. > I'm glad to see you put it that way, because in most previous > ocassions (including the one that triggered my intervention here) you > said that you had patch X or Y but the developers weren't interested > on them... It has sometimes seemed so to me, but looking back I think it is more about our limited resources. >> Really? Did you read my explanation then? (It is not important to me, >> but still I get irritated if the bug I was looking at gets ignored >> because of misunderstandings.) > > Misunderstanding is the operating word here. After a while, I find > your posts in some given thread harder and harder to follow. I often try to explain on another level if the previous message was not understood because it seems to me that this is necessary. I am not sure what the problem is. With some people here I find it very easy to communicate. With some it is quite hard.