[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Omitting Windows-specific parts from infrastructure changes

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Omitting Windows-specific parts from infrastructure changes
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 18:32:48 +0200

> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:14:28 -0800
> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>     It is working because I cleaned it up.  It didn't work before that
> No, the code already worked for the patches we're talking about, e.g., 
> replacing strcat with stpcpy. And it still works, in the places where the 
> MS-Windows code still uses strcat instead of stpcpy.

Beg your pardon, but how do you know this?  Since you said you don't
look into the Windows modules and don't understand their code, you
cannot possibly know whether it works/worked or not.

>     The costs are minuscule: just a short notice posted here.
> The costs would be more than that, as I'd need to examine code that I don't 
> look at now

You already said you didn't want to do that, and I already said you
don't have to.  So this is not required.

> and I'd have to save notes about the examination somewhere, and keep track of 
> these notes during the time period between searching and installing the fix, 
> which is often weeks.

Not required: just post those notes once when you first do the
examination, and don't bother updating them, if that's a burden.

> This would add nontrivial bureaucracy to the maintenance of mainline code, 
> with only a trivial benefit to non-mainline maintenance.

I assure you, the benefit is not trivial for me.  If it were, I
wouldn't have bothered starting all this uneasy discussion.

> It's not worth it.

It is worth it for me.  Please help me maintain the parts of Emacs in
which you have no interest.  Keeping those parts in good shape is a
prerequisite for my participation in the project, so it is of utmost
importance to me, if not to you.  (I think it's also of importance to
the project as a whole, but we seem to have quite different views of
the project's good, so you'll probably disagree.  However, I hope
others will agree with me.)


reply via email to

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