Re: [Texmacs-dev] Patches applied for next version

[Joris van der Hoeven]

> > 682: this should first be tested more thoroughly with
> >      several versions of Guile.
> 
> I hope you will soon be doing so.

No, that is your job, since you made the patch.

> Also can you explain what is the rationale behind using "generic" by
> default instead of a more generally useful style. I do not think
> "generic" is what can be called a "reasonable default".

I disagree; I do not see what "reasonable" objections you have.

> > 688: rejected; users want to see the complete commands being executed.
> >      We can live with a bit of clutter.
> 
> I think users really do not care about the compilation messages...

The messages issued by make are expected to tell the user exactly which
commands are being executed. I think that these commands are already
reasonably simple in the case of TeXmacs compared to other programs.
So I do see no reason to change this widely accepted convention.

> And I believe simplifying this message may cause the users to provide more
> complete build logs when reporting problems. Did you notice a
> difference in the quality of submitted build logs since nogencc was
> merged?

No.

> > I also think that 595 is obsolete and that 610 was already applied before.
> > Please remove such items, so that I do not have to look at things several
> > times.
> 
> About one week ago, I added comments to these patches to explain why
> they are still open.

Well, I will not remove the "Set text width" menu item,
because this is an entry which is expected by many TeX/LaTeX users.
So the update is rejected.

Also, I notice that I do not like post-commenting of applied patches.
In the case when a patch was incompletely or incorrectly applied,
I prefer you to synchronize the patch with the newer version.
This will greatly improve the speed with which patches are treated.

> > I also hope that removing -I- in 683 will work for all versions
> > of Guile and g++. This should also be tested more thoroughly.
>
> Testing compilation one numerous platforms is incredibly tedious and
> time consuming. So maybe we may accept a small probability of breaking
> a minor platform when fixing a problem on another platform.

I would call compiling TeXmacs using gcc 3.0.4 "compiling on a minor platform".

> For this specific change, as far as I recall, the "-I-" flag was
> introduced by nogencc, so not using it is unlikely to cause any
> problem. And considering how anal the build system is about include
> paths, I would be surprised to see many (if any) header file name
> conflicts arise.

Well, I remember problems with the order of the include paths
related to Guile, so I am not sure at all. As a general rule,
I do not like "fixes" which undo previous fixes, and thereby
introduce a big probability of error.