From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: EmacsW32 invocation options Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 16:18:16 +0200 Message-ID: References: <59osrdF2m97hgU1@mid.individual.net> <4637A396.9000300@gmail.com> <46383B57.6050508@gmail.com> <463891EE.60804@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1178115520 14729 80.91.229.12 (2 May 2007 14:18:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 14:18:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 02 16:18:36 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HjFf8-0005nw-HJ for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 16:18:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjFlY-0005u0-1l for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 10:25:12 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HjFlL-0005ti-3m for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 10:24:59 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HjFlH-0005sE-Ev for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 10:24:58 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjFlH-0005sB-Ck for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 10:24:55 -0400 Original-Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.236]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HjFer-0006Eo-18 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 10:18:17 -0400 Original-Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id s17so130164wxc for ; Wed, 02 May 2007 07:18:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Qy890aiQrp5iC+/SPLeD0PtmSk+x/f/DiyLuqQCC9r0ogtN7e62Y42Ms0ikat2/vHaNfaNe5rnGVJDnWoRYzTy6DVGHk4ZFTgnCL/j0klBJgpOEtTWKD7N04g5/HGlhY1ln8jqjXD0OkKIc1p9Oek5gtnVV8xxtnuYbchXKYljw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=W7wPySVYi8o82y49x1EuCAC9474dlO2iQVC+fqAe3qQWZszku1+Gx0K6x+O0/NMOMNiHe1vx2APExSeWuoZQlZlIsL14wgokOg+IuQvpqCAhhysx9Pmi6VGQltbVKwdfoUDXMrXQI2wrkwgzgnyZDfIREf93lPrW/SsAb0aF/gQ= Original-Received: by 10.90.63.16 with SMTP id l16mr433956aga.1178115496508; Wed, 02 May 2007 07:18:16 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.90.87.8 with HTTP; Wed, 2 May 2007 07:18:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <463891EE.60804@gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 (Google crawlbot) X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:43503 Archived-At: On 5/2/07, Lennart Borgman (gmail) 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