[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Emacs and GFortran

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Emacs and GFortran
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:26:10 +0200

> Cc: Thomas Koenig <address@hidden>,  address@hidden,
>         address@hidden,  address@hidden,
>         address@hidden,  address@hidden
> From: David Kastrup <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:32:49 +0100
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> > If I were Alfred, I'd hesitate to submit a patch, given the attitude
> > of several GFortranners.  That attitude is so hostile that I'd
> > suggest to talk to the steering committee about it.
> There would be more substance to talk about if he submitted a patch to
> the proper channels first.

The ``proper channels'' could have been pointed out right at the
beginning of this thread, in some polite manner.  Instead, the initial
responses were a flat refusal to even consider any change, then false
arguments about impossibility to express complex errors in the
standard form, then more stonewalling, etc. etc.  Only late into the
(by then very heated) dispute did we hear that the right way to submit
a patch was through ``the channels''.  At some point I wondered
whether we were talking to lawyers, not to fellow developers.

> free time developers don't necessarily react enthused if work gets
> dumped at their doors.

They should know better, IMO.  Btw, ``getting work dumped at my
doorsteps'' is precisely what some of us here do for Emacs for quite
some time now.  Somehow, we do manage to stay cool and supportive to
whoever reports problems.

> It is not like we don't see some passionate arguments on the Emacs
> developer list at times, too.

In those rare cases when similar hostility to outside complaints is
present on the Emacs list, the guilty parties are pointed out their
rude behavior.

> So I'd really recommend to Alfred passing over the momentary heat of
> discussion on the list, and entering a proper report at the bug
> reporting data base

This was already done a day or two ago; please re-read the thread.
And yet we still don't have an agreement to accept the patch, nor even
consider it an important problem to fix.

reply via email to

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