[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: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 05:51:33 +0200

> From: David Kastrup <address@hidden>
> Cc: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>,  address@hidden
> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:49:29 +0100
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> >> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 11:39:34 -0800
> >> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> >
> >> This is starting to get ridiculous.  Let's drop the discussion, as we're 
> >> not making any progress (quite the reverse, I'm afraid).
> >
> > I already suggested several ways to resolve this.  Feel free to make
> > your own suggestions, provided that the result will be that such
> > changes are done everywhere, without unduly punishing your fellow
> > developers who offer you help to do parts of your job.
> It's not his job.  We are rather talking about how to enable different
> people interested in different things to continue working on code in the
> same Emacs repository.

No, we are talking about making changes in infrastructure used by all
platforms.  Once someone decides to make such changes, making
good-faith effort to do that in all parts of Emacs is part of the job.
It could be done either by actually making those changes all over, or
by asking platform maintainers to do the parts related to their
platforms.  In the latter case, the platform maintainers should have
enough information about the proposed change to be able to do their
parts without investing too much time and effort where the initiator
can help them avoid that.

For example, in the recently discussed changeset that uses CALLN for
some C-level calls to Lisp APIs, the information that should be passed
to platform maintainers is how to identify the offending calls.  This
information is clear to the person who initiated the change and it's
possible to describe it in a sentence or two.  I have hard time
understanding how this kind of requirement could be described as
impossible or hard to comply.

reply via email to

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