[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Post-22.1 development?
From: |
Dan Nicolaescu |
Subject: |
Re: Post-22.1 development? |
Date: |
Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:02:26 -0700 |
David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
> Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > How about merging the multi-tty branch? The changes on that branch are
> > much more localized, so porting fixes from the trunk to the EMACS_22
> > branch should not be a big issue.
> >
> > Does anyone see a problem with this idea?
>
> Well, the setenv/process-environment thing I wanted to have a look at:
> in the current state, it will require quite a few changes in existing
> packages (including packages not distributed as part of Emacs), and I
> think that the approach which I sketched out would pretty much
> eliminate that problem.
Let me reiterate Karoly's (the multi-tty author) opinion on this,
which I also second as a contributor to that branch and as a (almost
exclusive) user for about 2 years: the environment variables thing is
a peripheral issue, and a rather obscure one.
Changing this requires about 50-100 lines of code (including comments)
and it can be done without major impact on the rest of the multi-tty
functionality (it has happened a few times on the multi-tty branch
already).
Karoly does not think there's a problem with the current
implementation (and I second that too), but he would have no objection
if David was to replace the current implementation.
> Merging multi-tty to the trunk now could mean that some people start
> patching up other packages inside or outside of Emacs to work with the
> current environment variable settings, while others will change the
> mechanisms eventually.
The changes in question for external packages probably amount to 1-2
lines of code. Plus I don't think we should be concerned about
external packages at this point.
For the code in Emacs, if the implementation changes I volunteer to go
over and fix any issues. I guesstimate this to be less than 10 minutes
of work.
So in conclusion _my_ (quite informed) opinion is that this issue
should not stop a merge.
Please let's move forward unless there are more serious issues that
need consideration.
Re: Post-22.1 development?, Dan Nicolaescu, 2007/06/10
- Re: Post-22.1 development?, Richard Stallman, 2007/06/11
- Re: Post-22.1 development?, David Kastrup, 2007/06/11
- Re: Post-22.1 development?, Miles Bader, 2007/06/11
- Re: Post-22.1 development?,
Dan Nicolaescu <=
- Re: Post-22.1 development?, David Kastrup, 2007/06/11
- Re: Post-22.1 development?, Dan Nicolaescu, 2007/06/11
Re: Post-22.1 development?, Richard Stallman, 2007/06/13
Re: Post-22.1 development?, Richard Stallman, 2007/06/12
Re: Post-22.1 development?, Stefan Monnier, 2007/06/12
Re: Post-22.1 development?, Jason Rumney, 2007/06/12
Re: Post-22.1 development?, Stefan Monnier, 2007/06/12
Re: Post-22.1 development?, David Kastrup, 2007/06/12
Re: Post-22.1 development?, Chong Yidong, 2007/06/12
Re: Post-22.1 development?, Richard Stallman, 2007/06/13