[Top][All Lists]

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

bug#5721: Feature request: Function that returnsabsolute coordinates

From: Drew Adams
Subject: bug#5721: Feature request: Function that returnsabsolute coordinates
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 11:52:46 -0700

> > Not the point.  I did not ask you to implement it.  I asked 
> > you to leave the feature request open.  That way, someone
> > who might be able to implement it might find it as a to-do. Thx.
> I don't think those working with w32 browse the bug tracker 
> to find tasks to do.

How do you know?

> But besides that, this is free software.  Unless a bug 
> explicitly mentions w32, I do think it is done when it is
> implemented for free systems (in this case, nextstep and X).
> I will try to not break compilation for non-free 
> systems, but that is as far as I go.

It's not about _you_.

As I said before, your part might well be done - which you are repeating "as far
as I go".  But that does not mean that the requested feature is done, or that
Emacs is done as far as the feature is concerned.  You are not Emacs.  Your
Emacs development is not the same as Emacs development.

> The state of Emacs should not depend on how well it performs
> on non-free systems.

The state of Emacs for a given platform depends on how well it performs on that
platform.  Emacs on w32 is Emacs.  GNU Emacs on w32 is GNU Emacs.

> If people want to use their time to get Emacs going on non-free
> systems, that is up to them.

Yes, it is.  The bug/feature request is for "people" and for "Emacs", not just
for you.

> But the main drive for Emacs are free systems,

I have no argument with that.

> and those are the ones that must count w.r.t. bugs 
> and feature requests.

No.  There is nothing wrong with filing Emacs bugs and feature requests that
affect w32.  And there is nothing wrong with fixing them.  They most certainly
do count for Emacs.  Features and bugs that are w32-specific are not "the main
drive" for Emacs, but they count for Emacs.  And so does the implementation on
w32 of features (such as this one) which are not w32-specific.

> If you can't implement it, file a new w32-specific bug.

Done.  Ridiculous, but done.

If the feature originally requested were specific to a particular platform, then
I would agree with you.  IIUC, it is not.  If that is correct, then there is no
reason to file platform-specific versions of the feature.

reply via email to

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