[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: user-controlled load-path extension: load-dir
From: |
Ted Zlatanov |
Subject: |
Re: user-controlled load-path extension: load-dir |
Date: |
Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:15:50 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110014 (No Gnus v0.14) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:08:15 +0900 "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>
wrote:
SJT> Ted Zlatanov writes:
>> I have not advocated [automatically installing and loading code]
>> and am against it; if I implied otherwise I apologize for the
>> misunderstanding. el-get's *bootstrap* may reside in the load-dir,
>> but all the packages it manages won't.
SJT> From the maintainer's point of view, this is *not about you*. You
SJT> have restrained requirements for the feature, yes. How do you propose
SJT> to impose *your* restraints on *others* who want additional features,
SJT> though?
By making the feature an optional, off-by-default loader and nothing more.
>> I view it as "I enabled the load-dir feature, maybe I should understand
>> it."
SJT> Again, how do you propose to get all other users to view it that way?
SJT> If this is only for you, you already know how to do it. Obviously,
SJT> you expect this to be used by many people. It needs to meet their
SJT> expectations as well as yours, or it's a bad idea to maintain it in
SJT> core.
I think you're arguing that the feature will be misinterpreted and
misused. I disagree and can't find a way to agree with you; I still
think it's simple enough that it won't cause the kind of mismatched
expectations that lead to unwanted behavior and bug reports.
>> You keep insisting on holding the user's hand.
SJT> No. I'm anticipating what *some* users are going to expect of it,
SJT> based on experience with maintaining similar features. I wouldn't
SJT> hold the user's hand in this case, I'd simply insist that the feature
SJT> be provided as a package. Then helping them with their misconceptions
SJT> (and statistically speaking, there will be a certain fraction of users
SJT> who misunderstand) is my privilege as core maintainer, not my
SJT> responsibility. Putting it in core makes it the other way around, and
SJT> that will suck for Stefan and Yidong IMO.
While I disagree about the consequences you think it will have, I'm
proposing it before committing code exactly so the maintainers can make
up their mind. I think we've both stated our case clearly at this point.
Ted
- Re: `custom-file' and init-file [was: user-controlled load-path extension: load-dir], (continued)
- Re: user-controlled load-path extension: load-dir, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/03/09
- Re: user-controlled load-path extension: load-dir, Ted Zlatanov, 2011/03/09
- Re: user-controlled load-path extension: load-dir, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/03/09
- Re: user-controlled load-path extension: load-dir, Ted Zlatanov, 2011/03/09
- Re: user-controlled load-path extension: load-dir, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/03/09
- Re: user-controlled load-path extension: load-dir, Ted Zlatanov, 2011/03/10
- Re: user-controlled load-path extension: load-dir, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/03/10
- Re: user-controlled load-path extension: load-dir,
Ted Zlatanov <=
- Re: user-controlled load-path extension: load-dir, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2011/03/10
- Re: user-controlled load-path extension: load-dir, Mike Mattie, 2011/03/09
- Re: user-controlled load-path extension: load-dir, Jan Djärv, 2011/03/10
- Re: user-controlled load-path extension: load-dir, Mike Mattie, 2011/03/09
- Re: user-controlled load-path extension: load-dir, Jan D., 2011/03/09
- Re: user-controlled load-path extension: load-dir, Mike Mattie, 2011/03/09
- Re: user-controlled load-path extension: load-dir, Mike Mattie, 2011/03/07
- Re: user-controlled load-path extension: load-dir, Ted Zlatanov, 2011/03/08
- Re: user-controlled load-path extension: load-dir, Mike Mattie, 2011/03/09
- Re: user-controlled load-path extension: load-dir, Ted Zlatanov, 2011/03/09