[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Omitting Windows-specific parts from infrastructure changes

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Omitting Windows-specific parts from infrastructure changes
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 21:50:04 +0200

> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 11:25:38 -0800
> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden
> >>> I'm sure when you do such changes, you
> >>> grep (or otherwise search) the whole tree for relevant places
> >>
> >> No, I hardly ever do that.
> >
> > Then please start doing that from now on.
> I'd rather not.  If someone else wants to search other modules for 
> opportunities 
> to make similar changes, that's obviously fine, but's it's not at all 
> necessary. 
>   Work like this should belong to the modules in question; among other 
> things, 
> it is more efficiently done by people who care about and are expert in those 
> modules.

But I didn't ask you to do the actual work, just point out the files
where changes similar to what you did might be needed.  That's all.
Without that, people who do want to do the work are basically unable
to do it, without repeating what you already did anyway, and on top of
that they need to guess what methods you used to identify the places
where changes are needed -- something that isn't documented in the
change logs.

IOW, basically the request is to post a short note about things you
know anyway.  The only extra work is composing the message itself.

> >> Ideally, the MS-Windows code would be a completely separate module
> >
> > That's a completely separate issue, unrelated to the issue at hand.
> No, the issues are related.  If the modules in question were completely 
> independent, this thread would not have come up.

It would have come up anyway, since the same infrastructure is used
everywhere.  It's the same C language, the same object system, the
same Makefile's and build system, etc.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]