[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Dan Nicolaescu
Subject: Re: Multi-tty design (Re: Reordering etc/NEWS)
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 15:13:11 -0700

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

  > Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden> writes:
  > > 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.
  > Reality check.  It didn't.  It only worked when one started the main
  > Emacs from a tty with termcap/terminfo settings identical to those
  > where one later started emacsclient.

Can you please provide a proper bug report of what you are trying to
do and how?

  > That was the problem I hit first and reported.  And part of the reason
  > is that getenv does not, as opposed to advertised, fetch a terminal-
  > or frame-specific environment variable.
  > So I changed it to do that in order to match its DOC string, and it
  > turns out that the code for _multitty_ (what this branch is supposed
  > to be about in the first place) does not yet fetch the right kind of
  > variables.

Do you feel that it is reasonable to make changes to the CVS that you
don't create ChangeLogs for, don't even post something on the list
letting people know that you've made changes, and then complain that 
things don't work and can't even discover that your own changes caused
the breakage?

  > So you propose to tackle the problem by destroying multi-tty
  > capability, making everything rely on a single environment for all
  > terminals.

I have proposed no such things. I only asked for a change to be
reverted because it made things strictly worse than before.

reply via email to

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