[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: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 19:55:09 +0200

> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:32:09 -0800
> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >>          it still works, in the places where the MS-Windows code still 
> >> uses strcat
> >>          instead of stpcpy.
> >>
> >>      Beg your pardon, but how do you know this?
> >>
> >> Because I made an extra effort to check, as part of following up this 
> >> conversation.
> >
> > Which changeset did you check?
> I looked at the the version of the master current as of when I wrote the 
> email.

All of it?  And how do you know it's not broken?  Did you run Emacs on
Windows?  Did you try all those features affected by the changes I was
talking about?

> > _After_ we know that the changeset had to deal with strcat following
> > strcpy, yes, it's a simple thing to find those places.
> Great, then you can do this simple thing, whenever you find it
> convenient.

How can I do that without knowing what to do?  "This simple thing"
needs to be defined, and I'm asking you to help me define it.  Then I
can pick up where you prefer to leave off.

> It's not urgent, and it can be omitted entirely for changes like
> this.

No, it cannot be omitted.  It should be your job, as part of the
changes you make.  I could simply object to your changes that do a
partial job, or revert them.  Instead, I agree to do that work for
you, and all I'm asking in return is a little help, insignificant for
you, but one that will save me a non-trivial amount of time cleaning
up after you.

> > We all have our
> > personal preferences, but we shouldn't go after fellow developers
> > whose preferences are different.
> Exactly, and for several days you have been going after me, asking me to do 
> nonessential drudgework to help polish up the MS-Windows code.  I prefer not 
> to.

You could have said yes after the first request.  Then this discussion
would have been long over.

I'm sorry, but "I prefer not to" is unacceptable in this case.  Please
find a way to provide the minimal help that I'm asking for.

reply via email to

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