Re: contributing to Emacs

[Konstantin Kharlamov]

On Sun, 2023-06-18 at 04:34 -0400, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>    Okay, as mentioned elsewhere in thread, I think the problem is
>    known and further discussion here ain't productive. So I'm going to
>    stop here. But to answer something quickly verifiable:
> 
> Several people agree that contributing to Emacs is trivial, to the
> point that you do not need to read _anything_ to make a contriubution,
> even a significant one.  So what problem exactly is known?
> 
>    > Your message was quite far larger than both documents together
>    > ... consider that for a second.  
> 
>    No. I measured specifically for you: "Sending Patches" alone is 5884
> characters
>    not counting bullets, and my email was 3491 characters.
> 
> Exaggerated claims, get overblown responses.  *shurg*

My claims are easily verifiable and correct. Your claim wasn't correct.

But I don't know what you're getting at here, because even if my claims were
exaggerated, replying them with a lie (because as I understand your last
sentence it wasn't a mistake, you actually okay with it being wrong just because
you think my claims are exaggerated) is non-technical at best. I don't see much
point in further discussion with you, thanks.