[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Syncing Gnus and Emacs repositories

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Syncing Gnus and Emacs repositories
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:01:20 +0300

> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden
> From: David Kastrup <address@hidden>
> Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:09:54 +0200
> > I don't necessarily agree with Richard's decision, but can you
> > explain why should it be a drag on the development?  If someone
> > wants to make far-reaching changes, they could always switch to the
> > Unicode branch and make them there, can't they?
> And that is going to make merging unicode-2 into the trunk easier just
> how?

It won't make it easier, but I don't see how it would make it harder,

> And if we are considering new feature branches

Are we? if so, what are they?  If this is just a hypothetical
situation, we don't need to be bothered by it.

> should they be based off unicode-2 in order to have the ability to
> prepare stuff intended for 23.1?

It depends on the specific feature in question.

> Richard) Let's keep the trunk close to 22.1
> Ken'ichi) Let's keep the trunk close to unicode-2 so that we can move
>           forward soon with merging, and don't have extra effort to
>           move Emacs to 23.1.
> The difference is that I see no useful "so that" for Richard's desire.

I don't see how that matters.  It is the combination of these that
causes the development to stall; take out one of them, and the problem
is gone.

> Would Ken'ichi complain if we merged unicode-2 into the trunk
> tomorrow?  I doubt it.

He asked not to, so doing so over his objections would be unkind.

> There is a _purpose_ to Ken'ichi's request,
> and that purpose is to facilitate move development forward.
> I fail to see a similar purpose to the request of Richard.

This just means that you agree with Ken'ichi, but not with Richard.
But compromises are not based on agreements, they are based on meeting
your opponents half-way.

> >> The current plan, however, seems to be "let's achieve as little as
> >> possible over as long as possible".
> >
> > That's just being vicious, David.  There are ways to say what you
> > want without assuming malicious intent such as this, which Richard
> > clearly cannot have.
> I don't see where I am stating malicious intent here.

Then perhaps we have very different standards of civilized behavior,
and continuing this discussion becomes useless and pointless.

reply via email to

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