emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Platform independent graphical display for Emacs


From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: Re: Platform independent graphical display for Emacs
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2021 14:59:34 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0

On 25.12.2021 15:06, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Cc: stefankangas@gmail.com, luangruo@yahoo.com, drew.adams@oracle.com,
  emacs-devel@gnu.org
From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2021 13:57:40 +0200

So you'd suggest to the OP to develop the software in the hope that
all of the above will happen?  And if it doesn't, just agree for the
results to be abandoned?  The OP would have to agree to that.

I suppose.

And I think the BeOS port had been accepted under the same conditions
recently.

Because we did have someone who volunteered, and because nothing would
be lost on platforms of interest to us if the BeOS port bitrots.

Which would be also true when someone initially proposes the new "single toolkit" port for inclusion.

And I fail to see how that solves the long-term maintenance problem,
once we do accept the code.  This happened in the past, more than
once.

We should be able to drop unmaintained ports.

Once again, a single toolkit on which all the platforms depend cannot
be dropped.  So it's a huge difference from the BeOS port.

Once again: we would only get to that point after the "single toolkit" port is functional, accepted by the majority of us, and probably "adopted" by a few regular contributors as their area of interest.

Only then we could realistically vote to drop all other ports.

I'm sure a contributor who would propose such new port would understand all of this.

Even if we're reluctant, in general, to remove features that someone
is using. After all, the history of changes is saved, so as soon as
a volunteer arrives to resurrect it, they can start with 'git
revert' and continue.

That's generally not a practical possibility, because the code changes
very rapidly, and what you revert won't even compile in most cases.

Yes and no: I'm sure having the previous code available will be a lot of help. As opposed to rewriting the same port from scratch.



reply via email to

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