Re: Multi-tty design (Re: Reordering etc/NEWS)

[Dan Nicolaescu]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

  > Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden> writes:
  > 
  > > David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
  > 
  > >   > So reverting the change is not the right solution.  Personally,
  > >   > I think the arguments of getenv and setenv are completely messed
  > >   > up.
  > 
  > [You deleted the whole discussion and proposal for making a more
  > stable solution]

Yes, intentionally as it is irrelevant here. Before your change people
were able to test the multi-tty functionality, after it they are not. 
Nobody claimed the code was bug free, but it did do what was
advertised to do.

This shows a total lack of respect for all the hard work Karoly's put
in for a few years.

  > > It is at this point. You changed the code from working into
  > > non-working,
  > 
  > Wrong.  I changed code from _not_ working as advertised to _working_
  > as advertised.  Which means that a bug in a _caller_ now gets exposed.
  > You think that the right solution for the problem is hiding the bug in
  > the caller again, making the function do something different from what
  > the documentation claims it does.

You left the tree in an broken state, you didn't even debug the
problem that you caused. THAT is wrong.

  > I'll try to see whether I can find the problematic caller.  But I
  > certainly hope that this "paper over it and hope nobody notices it"
  > stance does not pervade multi-tty, and that the _bug_ which I fixed
  > was not intentional but an oversight.

This is totally uncalled for. 
I have already given you a trivial way to find the caller.