Re: Different emacs arrangements in one session

[Jai Dayal <dayalsoap@gmail.com>]

The problem is that this is a persistent problem amongst computer
scientists and software engineers. They try to opine on small little
details that actually never address the problem at hand. I asked a very
specific question, and instead of getting an answer to that question, an
assumption of "I know you're doing it wrong because I do it this way" was
made and then the question never gets answered.



On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:

> Jai Dayal <dayalsoap@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Since you tried to be pedantic and not actually answer my question,
> explain
> > this:
>
> Still top posting?
>
> > I have code on machine 1. I make a change, compile it, and then git
> commit
> > it.
> >
> > On machine 2 and also on machine 3, I have to git pull, and then compile.
> >
> > Then I have to launch the codes that test it. Machine 1 runs something,
> > machine 2 runs something, machine 3 runs something, etc.
> >
> > That's why I like having multiple terminals in my emacs session; in one
> > frame I have all of my code buffers. In the other frame, I have all of my
> > terminals (ssh'd into machine 2, machine 3 and one for machine 1). From
> > there, I can launch the respective codes, git pull, and compile.
> >
> > You can't do that with M-x compile.
> >
> > So basically, you tried to be pedantic, and were *wrong* with your stupid
> > suggestion.
>
> I see.
>
> Because you can't figure out how to run compiles and tests on remote
> machines then it's impossible.
> I wonder how I've been doing it all this time...
>
> You know, I saw your post and I pictured all these windows and jumping
> around and all that stuff, and I thought, gee, I don't have that
> problem,  I think I might be able to help...
>
> Good luck.
>
> --
> Dan Espen
>