[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Why are so many great packages not trying to get included in GNU Ema

From: Stefan Monnier
Subject: Re: Why are so many great packages not trying to get included in GNU Emacs? WAS: Re: Making Emacs more friendly to newcomers
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 01:08:19 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux)

I haven't followed this thread very closely, but it seems we've strayed
far enough away from Emacs that it's become quite offtopic.

I may be wrong (since I haven't followed the thread very closely) but my
understanding is that Konstantin would like it for Emacs to accept
submission using a "merge request" model or something like that.

We've discussed this many times in the past.  IIUC, we're slowly going
there (see https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Fsf_2019_forge_evaluation), but
we're an old project, and those people who most contribute to Emacs tend
not to go very much for the shiny new stuff, so if you like the shiny
new stuff I recommend you a healthy dose of patience.


Eli Zaretskii [2020-06-21 05:35:24] wrote:

>> From: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel@yandex.ru>
>> Cc: rekado@elephly.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org, stefan@marxist.se, 
>>      joaotavora@gmail.com, dgutov@yandex.ru
>> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 01:25:15 +0300
>> So, I recalculated by looking at date of the last commit of those "500" in 
>> GCC,
>> and used that date on Clang. I made sure to sort out other corporate mails 
>> too.
>> Command I used is:
>>      git log --since="Jun 8 21:34:46" --format="%ae" | grep -vP
>> "@\S*(redhat|arm|suse|google|gnu|adacore|alibaba|intel|ibm|apple|linaro|huawei|c
>> odesourcery|golang|sony|amd|chromium|nvidia|loongson|accesssoftek|ubisoft|micros
>> oft|fb|energize|comstyle|nextsilicon|quicinc|azul|gentoo|graphcore|gdcproject|si
>> five|imagelabs|xilinx|sap|sas|sigmatechnology|sonarsource|ericsson|lowrisc|hight
>> ec-rt|polymagelabs)\.(org|com|de|cz|cn|ai|se)" | sort -u | wc -l
>> So, now GCC still gets 15, while for Clang this number gets increased to 89.
> This metric is irrelevant.  Basically, you removed everyone who was a
> prominent developer, so it's little wonder that you are left with a
> small number.  Using such arbitrary criteria, one can "prove" anything
> for any project.
> Once again, the long history and the active development of GCC over
> those long years are a clear evidence that your criterion is
> completely off the mark.

reply via email to

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