Re: EmacsW32 invocation options

["Juanma Barranquero" <lekktu@gmail.com>]

On 5/2/07, Lennart Borgman (gmail) <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, more discussion would be good. I really tried to open a discussion
> about it, but I did not get much company.

I'd say you're being unfair, but that would be far too nice. You seem
to have suddenly forgotten tens of messages (public and private) and
quite a few hours devoted to this and related issues. Once again I get
the feeling that you're very conservative with your time, and quite
liberal with other people's.

Also, the fact that your patches (for this issue) where not included
is not because "you did not get much company"; it is because they were
late, not convincing to some people (me included), and not deemed
urgent enough; and, to my knowledge, not agreeing with your assessment
of a problem's gravity/urgency is not a failure in the Emacs
development process. I'm sure you'll disagree.

> Did you read the download page for Emacs+EmacsW32? Did you read the
> documentation on the web pages about the patches?

Yes, Lennart, I did. Once. Fortunately, I'm not morally or
contractually obliged to memorize every single word you write.

> I am not aware of any bugs that have not been fixed.

I haven't said "not fixed".

> None of the
> problems where related to the changes to Emacs client.

I'm speaking from memory, but I remember at least one bug report that
explicitly mentioned trouble in the automatic start of the server
(though, if my memory doesn't fail, you fixed it in your patches). But
that's irrelevant; I've said that I seem to remember a few problems,
but that does not affect in any way whether I think that your patches
are a good or a bad idea (as long as you do the support for them,
which you do).

             Juanma