[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Omitting Windows-specific parts from infrastructure changes

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Omitting Windows-specific parts from infrastructure changes
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:08:20 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:

> On 01/21/2015 09:55 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> I could simply object to your changes that do a
>> partial job, or revert them.
> Wow, is this really a threat to block or revert changes to the Emacs
> mainline code, as leverage to force people to do unnecessary
> drudgework to help polish up the MS-Windows code?

I don't see a threat here.  When a change in master breaks functionality
for a number of people, the change is reverted as a rule in the projects
that I am an active member of.  Once the problems have been sorted out,
the change may be recommitted.

A half-finished change does not just affect the person who ends up
fixing the change but everybody else who is working on the platforms
broken by a change.  Not everyone is in a position to fix every change,
and there is no point in having a dozen people frantically working on
the same fix.

Emacs is developed with a distributed version control system so working
on private changes is perfectly possible without affecting the common
public repository.

Where a change requires involving multiple platform maintainers, it is
easily possible to first propose/provide the change in a branch where
the respective platform developers able to test or cater for a change
can prepare such changes without affecting the usability of the master
branch for other developers.

> This is starting to get ridiculous.

It struck me as ridiculous for quite longer than you it would seem, but
then I would guess for quite different reasons.

> Let's drop the discussion, as we're not making any progress (quite the
> reverse, I'm afraid).

While it does not appear that you've changed the stance of either of you
two in any way, at least others became aware of the issue and of your
inability to come to an agreement.  That makes it more likely that
others will try contributing to a resolution in case the problem

But since resentment tends to be higher when people not directly
affected try effecting a change, that tends to have a worse chance for
deescalating the situation than if those directly affected can find a
way of cooperating themselves.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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