From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juanma Barranquero Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: What holds the release Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:39:20 +0200 Message-ID: References: <17070.36649.525270.871681@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <85aclqzief.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Reply-To: Juanma Barranquero NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1118925571 2264 80.91.229.2 (16 Jun 2005 12:39:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:39:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 16 14:39:23 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ditdg-0007P0-My for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:38:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ditj6-0005LR-5N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:44:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DitiR-00054J-AN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:43:27 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DitiO-00053E-Sx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:43:25 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DitiO-00052A-Jj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:43:24 -0400 Original-Received: from [64.233.182.206] (helo=nproxy.gmail.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DitgB-0004m9-PI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:41:07 -0400 Original-Received: by nproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i2so19430nfe for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 05:39:20 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=btMcF2QaNRF5GB5V5AaRoMmR5zuYSJ+HRcEljFPL2hgXxGxdffr7wBSrDOff3mjRlYkNyEWRB11BgL3gOOFH8ESh+PBL2r7BzNNjTx44N3GTZViWRxzfXSIvX0PCvr9rYOAaurYIIusvnoDitBYwPJmeLm9G5Efv6vd2acmH6U4= Original-Received: by 10.48.144.12 with SMTP id r12mr15365nfd; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 05:39:20 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.48.250.5 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 05:39:20 -0700 (PDT) Original-To: David Kastrup In-Reply-To: <85aclqzief.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Content-Disposition: inline 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:38954 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:38954 On 6/16/05, David Kastrup wrote: > > OK 100% wrt the manuals. "Lowering the quality" seems loaded > > language to me, given the different POVs about the relative > > importance of FOR-RELEASE items. > Stop right here. That the various FOR-RELEASE items are rated > differently does not mean that people think they are all unimportant. Yeah, I think I have no trouble understanding that. Do you have any trouble understanding that "given the different POVs about the relative importance of FOR-RELEASE items" do *not* imply that "people think they are all unimportant", only what it says: that different people have different ideas about the relative importance of each item? And, related question: did I say just *once* that I thought the FOR-RELEASE items were unimportant? > > And 100% disagree with you that branching for a release and leaving > > the trunk for new development would "divert resources" (you stated > > this position back then, if I'm not misremembering). >=20 > Stop right here again. That people don't chime in and shout "me too, > me too" whenever Richard says something does not mean that they are in > disagreement. If people don't consider it necessary of having the > same old arguments repeated all over again by more than one person, > that does not mean that they have become less valid. Perhaps you misunderstood "100% disagree" as meaning "100% of developers disagree". As I am not Walt Whitman, I'm not vast and I do not contain multitudes: I usually speak for myself. So "And 100% disagree" meant "And I disagree with you one hundred percent". If that was prone to misunderstanding because my limited English skills failed, you should have given me the benefit of doubt and read the message first as if I were speaking on *my* behalf and no-one else's. Thanks for nothing. > So please refrain from assigning opinions to developers at your whim. > Speak for yourself. I usually do. Even when I refer to other developers, as I did in a previous message, I try to quote what they say, point at the sources (sorry for not including a link to the relevant thread two and a half years ago, but you can find it with five minutes research on the archives), and I try *very hard* not to put other people's words in their mouths. I also try very hard to not cross the polite/impolite border. Sometimes it seems more difficult than others. --=20 /L/e/k/t/u