From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Sebastian Wiesner Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: maintain flymake.el Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 22:23:30 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87a9gdzx63.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1387056213 24656 80.91.229.3 (14 Dec 2013 21:23:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 21:23:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ted Zlatanov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 14 22:23:40 2013 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 1VrwgT-0002km-7e for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 22:23:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48664 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VrwgS-00063l-PK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 16:23:36 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37063) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VrwgP-00063g-Rv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 16:23:34 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VrwgM-0001WL-SY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 16:23:33 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-qa0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c00::235]:54740) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VrwgM-0001WF-Os for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 16:23:30 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-qa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id j5so524047qaq.5 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 13:23:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=mConXg0xj2ib7xLL7VgSUGrS19ZhwQOkvoFoYr+0mJo=; b=BZ17D6SGk5Nkk3f0AKSVzLkYWyWoqWT/bbbnbivTwGhAZ6YWoWIEkS7jWPddJJa6Aq 4QMyW8l/ngS3xYnZfSi1/4Dfq7UY7Z1aafEKchTKQjGBzTwR5NxiAhB0/4Vy6yiDfJfU Dw70qIgvEE4GLlQbT5FK17Nj6KuehK0bcnuuz+F3aw5vQWe0Za8V67bZgogar4F/tMRu 4uKpbR8SBfDPVtWA18RzKMiKtg62JAuDPvJJ4htg9x+R9LUaHDEV2kXzckZ4XsowkB79 E99hzHcvBdeXyHnAGFkq3HYFzyIZlDT6TMHeiz2JEy6Gl5AlQJHJK3lQMbx93gDkarau 68ng== X-Received: by 10.229.71.5 with SMTP id f5mr18078176qcj.18.1387056210163; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 13:23:30 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.224.207.73 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 13:23:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87a9gdzx63.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400d:c00::235 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:166409 Archived-At: 2013/12/6 Ted Zlatanov : > The following message is a courtesy copy of an article > that has been posted to gmane.emacs.devel as well. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'm subscribed to emacs-devel, though, so I saw it anyway :) > On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 01:01:50 +0800 Leo Liu wrote: > > LL> If no one objects I'd like to take the role of maintaining flymake.el. > > (courtesy CC to lunaryorn@gmail.com) > > No objection, but I wanted to mention (since I use it) > https://github.com/flycheck/flycheck and that I hope there could be some > reconciliation between their configuration styles. As the maintainer > of cfengine.el I'd like to have a way to support both tools without > maintaining two different configuration variables. I do not think that this is easily possible. There are huge conceptual differences between Flycheck and Flymake, and it would require a lot of glue code in either way to use the syntax checkers of each other library. However, at least with regards to Flycheck, you do not really need to maintain anything. As soon as a syntax checker lands in Flycheck, I'll take care of it. That's why I want test cases for contributed syntax checkers :) > It would be nice to see a comparison table between the two, as well. I started to work on a comparsion table in the Flycheck wiki at https://github.com/flycheck/flycheck/wiki/Comparsion. It's not finished yet, but I hope for it to be complete and mostly neutral. Being the author of Flycheck, I do consider Flycheck completely superior in all aspects, and such you may find this table unfairly biased towards Flycheck. Please excuse any wrong tendencies or any factual mistakes, and suggest improvements. I hope to finish the document by tomorrow evening, and will come back if it's done. > (I am not bringing up Semantic here because it's a different use case. I think.) > > Thanks > Ted