From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Changes 2009-07-15/16 in branch? Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:56:08 +0900 Organization: Faculty of Science, Chiba University Message-ID: References: <4A692E0A.9060108@gnu.org> <633A5994-67EB-4A21-AD99-3359CB5D6D65@Princeton.EDU> <87skgetgm3.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1249005397 13314 80.91.229.12 (31 Jul 2009 01:56:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:56:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , Richard Stallman To: Chong Yidong Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 31 03:56:30 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MWhMB-0002NL-Cc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:56:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41254 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MWhMA-0001yp-Oa for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:56:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MWhM6-0001xy-N2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:56:22 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MWhM1-0001wb-3P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:56:21 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42937 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MWhM1-0001wR-1T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:56:17 -0400 Original-Received: from ntp.math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp ([133.82.132.2]:58645 helo=mathmail.math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MWhLy-0007i2-2y; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:56:14 -0400 Original-Received: from church.math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp (church [133.82.132.36]) by mathmail.math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D5272C43; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:56:08 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <87skgetgm3.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.8 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Shij=F2?=) APEL/10.6 Emacs/22.3 (sparc-sun-solaris2.8) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: NetBSD 3.0 (DF) 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:113441 Archived-At: >>>>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:01:08 -0400, Chong Yidong said: > YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu writes: >> Maintainers, shouldn't you explain why you released Emacs 23.1 >> without removing the Cocoa-only background transparent feature? >> >> I've explained reasons why it should be removed in so many aspects. >> But I've never heard of logical reasons from you. > As I've explained before, it was too late to make drastic internals > changes. I agreed to the removal of the user commands for setting > the alpha channel---a "removal", I might add, that actually > consisted of not reverting your unannounced, unagreed-upon changes > to a release branch in heavy freeze---but your other changes to the > ns*.m internals were too risky for the marginal "benefit" provided > (that "benefit" being to make it slightly harder for users to set > the alpha in an incompatible way). What do you mean by "slightly harder"? Does it mean the users can specify alpha-component and use background transparent feature in some harder way even if you don't revert the part of my change? It was intended for users to make it completely impossible to specify alpha-component. Also, the above reason ("too late") does not explain why you reverted the change also in the trunk. If you are against some of the reasons I've given, please explain. > Now, I'm confident that someone of your intelligence will be able to > find some persnickety arguments against this decision. But I've > little inclination to engage in more such debate, so you'll > unfortunately have to live with it. I don't think the argument on the GNU policy infringement "persnickety". Moreover, this should have been addressed before the release whether or not I've made some change about it. YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu mituharu@math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp