1:48 p.m.
David Kastrup writes:
people without write access just get ignored, abused or both.
Nonsense, as a quick look at a few XEmacs Beta threads will show.
Quite obviously the bugs themselves and the reporters' demeanor have a
huge amount to do with it, write access or not very little, and very
few reporters receive cross words, and even fewer are ignored.
Ralf dug up the information that I asked for, as well as very useful
information about Emacs that you also chose not to get[1], and he got
the desired result. I greatly appreciate his efforts, because it
turned what I thought would be a hard bug into a pretty superficial
one.[2]
Your bluster, on the other hand, is a lot of sound and fury,
signifying nothing except your frustration. I felt sorry for you,
and more so for the actual users, but as long as I was under the
impression that getting into the guts of copy-syntax-table was
required, to me it wasn't worth the time I estimated it would take.
I have better things to do.
Time constraint and bug triage is just an unfortunate reality in an
open source project staffed by a declining number of volunteers.
Footnotes:
[1] In fact you incorrectly claimed the opposite, which was important
-- it made it seem that the use of copy-syntax-table was a deliberate,
XEmacs-specific change, meaning that the hairy internals probably
would be relevant.
[2] I suspect that `copy-syntax-table' still needs surgery, but that
is pretty clearly not relevant to this particular issue.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
2:02 p.m.
New subject: Changes in font locking
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
David Kastrup writes:
> people without write access just get ignored, abused or both.
Nonsense, as a quick look at a few XEmacs Beta threads will show.
Quite obviously the bugs themselves and the reporters' demeanor have
a huge amount to do with it, write access or not very little, and
very few reporters receive cross words, and even fewer are ignored.
This problem has been reported in the past by both Gnus and AUCTeX
developers in a civil manner, and ignored.
Ralf dug up the information that I asked for, as well as very useful
information about Emacs that you also chose not to get[1], and he
got the desired result.
The time it would have cost an XEmacs developer with a checked-out
copy to come up with the relevant information using vc-annotate would
have been one minute.
I find it amusing that you accuse me of deliberately not looking for
information you did not ask for (the additional info Ralf dug up about
Emacs), while steadfastly refusing looking for information within
XEmacs that you get asked for, for the purpose of being able to find a
fix for XEmacs.
Talk about double standards.
Your bluster, on the other hand, is a lot of sound and fury,
signifying nothing except your frustration. I felt sorry for you,
and more so for the actual users, but as long as I was under the
impression that getting into the guts of copy-syntax-table was
required, to me it wasn't worth the time I estimated it would take.
I have better things to do.
Well, if you and other XEmacs developers have better things to do than
fixing bugs in XEmacs, why should this work be done by people not even
using XEmacs?
Time constraint and bug triage is just an unfortunate reality in an
open source project staffed by a declining number of volunteers.
You don't seem too concerned about that decline. At least I can't see
much to encourage otherwise.
Footnotes:
[1] In fact you incorrectly claimed the opposite, which was important
-- it made it seem that the use of copy-syntax-table was a deliberate,
XEmacs-specific change, meaning that the hairy internals probably
would be relevant.
You should really at some time start supporting your claims about all
my evil-doings with actual quotes. I made no claims about the history
of this code: that was the reason I asked for an XEmacs developer to
use vc-annotate or its equivalent for looking for it.
I certainly assumed that the change originated in XEmacs (after all,
we received no reports for this problem on other platforms), but I
don't remember doing any _claims_ warranting this kind of
chastisement.
If you actually accompanied your accusations with actual quotes, this
would put things better in perspective for the reader.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
7:36 a.m.
New subject: Changes in font locking
David Kastrup writes:
This problem has been reported in the past by both Gnus and AUCTeX
developers in a civil manner, and ignored.
We have taken notice; we simply haven't fixed it, due to other claims
on developer time. It's been *tabled*, with no date set for
continuance. That is very different from "ignoring". To contrast
"ignoring" with "report in civil manner" is to make an implicit claim
that we "owe" you something, simply because you report it. Sorry;
we're *all volunteers*, and quite time-constrained. We can't even
muster a Google Summer of Code mentor.
Talk about double standards.
Not at all. I don't blame you for *not looking*, I object to you
*attacking me* for not looking, when you make the same kind of
decision based on your own constraints. All I intended was to point
out that it would have been equally easy for you to look at Emacs
history, because it happens that in this case that was the relevant
place to look.
Well, if you and other XEmacs developers have better things to do
than fixing bugs in XEmacs,
Nice own-troll! No, we don't have better things to do than fix bugs;
we just have better things to do than fix *this* bug. YHBT HAND.
Really, if XEmacs were so wonderful that the obvious bug to fix is the
with-syntax-table bug, you would be out collecting assignments for it
so that you could use it in good conscience.
why should this work be done by people not even using XEmacs?
Who am I to judge others' reasons? I only judge my own: I have no
personal reason to care about this bug. It's not a quality issue. If
I fixed currently known bugs 24 hours a day, I could probably go 10
years without needing to look at with-syntax-table.
People who *do* care *can* make the effort, and in this case I decided
I would leave it to them. Who knows why volunteers do what they do?
If they want to do it, they will. Whether they use XEmacs or not
makes no matter.
It's actually very sad, because I should have a personal reason. I
respect and *like* you, David, though I rarely have the opportunity to
express that. Your bug reports *should* be such a chance. Because I
find your reporting style offensive, they're not, and realistically,
it's better for XEmacs if I table them -- if taking offense is a bug
in me, it's better for XEmacs that I don't fix it. :-( There are
lots of people who can fix the XEmacs bugs just as well as I can.
There are many other things that I should do *first*.
> Time constraint and bug triage is just an unfortunate reality in
an
> open source project staffed by a declining number of volunteers.
You don't seem too concerned about that decline. At least I
can't see
much to encourage otherwise.
What do you think my consistent recommendation that you declare that
"XEmacs is not supported" is based on? A hate for XEmacs? Of course
I'm concerned. But I refuse to adopt your approach of berating the
people who sometimes do contribute when they don't give my requests
priority over their own plans.
I wish you'd stop attributing motivation to me. And I wish just as
much you'd stop assuming I attribute motivation to you. It's against
my religion.
I made no claims about the history of this code: that was the
reason I asked for an XEmacs developer to use vc-annotate or its
equivalent for looking for it.
I make no claim that you made claims about the history of XEmacs
code; at least on auctex-devel, I'm sure that the majority would agree
with my assessment that you personally are unlikely to make them, it's
not your style.
My claim is that you denied that the copy-syntax-table call was in
Emacs 21, which is true. <85ird4lrr2.fsf(a)lola.goethe.zz> You can say
"the word I used was 'doubt'", but the important thing is that's
enough to *strongly* discourage me from making the effort. I don't
know if Ralf "felt" the same; I'm glad he went ahead and did it.
I don't remember doing any _claims_ warranting this kind of
chastisement.
"Chastisement" it is not; I don't judge you for making the claims. I
simply need to point them out, because they're relevant to my acts.
I respect your judgment and knowledge of Emacs internals, and if you
say it's not there, even with some level of doubt, I'm not going to
waste time looking.
But the Emacs (no "X"!) history was the crucial datum!
Note, this is not *blame*, I simply point out that your comments
*could* have led to continued impasse. You clearly didn't intend to
look, I was discouraged from looking. It's due to raw good fortune
(and of course, Ralf's good will!) that somebody did look, and the
whole thing could be resolved with the amount of effort I'm willing to
make.
You could say "Steve, you put far more effort into this flame fest
than it would have taken to do the research." And that would be
correct, but very shortsighted. To the extent that I accept
responsibility for XEmacs development, the *last* thing *I* should be
doing is fixing bugs.
IMO, right now the right answer for XEmacs 21.5 for bugs of this level
of importance is "WONTFIX". We are *not* in prerelease mode. We have
big problems that should be fixed before thinking about fixing this
kind of bug. We can hope that they'll get fix en passant to some sync
or refactoring, but to put in core developer effort on fixing minor
bugs is too expensive to encourage. Rather, I reluctantly tell 3rd
party library developers to stop breaking their heads on XEmacs bugs.
You know that very well; I probably tell you that about once every six
weeks.
Other core developers probably feel differently (Aidan Kehoe, for one
likely candidate), but their own time constraints evidently prevent
them from "doing" much about it. I take that as confirmation of my
approach.
Thus this thread of hot-headed apologia.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
8:10 a.m.
New subject: Changes in font locking
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
David Kastrup writes:
> This problem has been reported in the past by both Gnus and
> AUCTeX developers in a civil manner, and ignored.
We have taken notice; we simply haven't fixed it, due to other
claims on developer time. It's been *tabled*, with no date set for
continuance. That is very different from "ignoring".
Tell that to the bug.
> Talk about double standards.
Not at all. I don't blame you for *not looking*, I object to you
*attacking me* for not looking, when you make the same kind of
decision based on your own constraints.
I dare you to find anything akin to your discouraging remarks in my
posting history on the developer list of projects I am in charge of.
All I intended was to point out that it would have been equally easy
for you to look at Emacs history, because it happens that in this
case that was the relevant place to look.
But there was no point in looking in the Emacs history before it was
established (by looking in the XEmacs history) that this code was
taken from Emacs.
It is not that I have not written this already, you just choose to
ignore it. It is little games like that which make communication with
you so tiresome.
Really, if XEmacs were so wonderful that the obvious bug to fix is
the with-syntax-table bug, you would be out collecting assignments
for it so that you could use it in good conscience.
You are living in a fantasy world. If XEmacs worked exactly as
advertised and documented, I'd still not be using it because I don't
like its APIs, its look, and unfortunately, its developers' attitudes.
Certainly not of all of them, but certainly those setting the tone and
policies. We certainly have our own share of complicated persons in
Emacs development (in AUCTeX, we don't have personality problems as
far as I can discern. It does not even bring out the worst in
myself), but they don't manage to ruin the atmosphere as thoroughly,
and the attitude towards bug reports is utterly different.
It's actually very sad, because I should have a personal reason.
I
respect and *like* you, David, though I rarely have the opportunity
to express that. Your bug reports *should* be such a chance.
Because I find your reporting style offensive, they're not, and
realistically, it's better for XEmacs if I table them -- if taking
offense is a bug in me, it's better for XEmacs that I don't fix it.
Please get real. This particular bug was reported by two different
parties in civil style over several years. And most of my bug reports
start out civil enough.
When bugs get fixed after I finally start raising a stink, it is
mostly due to some XEmacs and AUCTeX developers getting embarrassed at
the childish behavior of their respective project leaders.
I should hope we could do better than that, but I am afraid that you
are able to convinve me otherwise time and again.
I wish you'd stop attributing motivation to me. And I wish just
as
much you'd stop assuming I attribute motivation to you. It's
against my religion.
Oh, it would be a start if you stopped attributing actual things to me
I never said, never mind what motivations you don't ascribe to them.
> I made no claims about the history of this code: that was the
> reason I asked for an XEmacs developer to use vc-annotate or its
> equivalent for looking for it.
I make no claim that you made claims about the history of XEmacs
code; at least on auctex-devel, I'm sure that the majority would
agree with my assessment that you personally are unlikely to make
them, it's not your style.
My claim is that you denied that the copy-syntax-table call was in
Emacs 21, which is true. <85ird4lrr2.fsf(a)lola.goethe.zz> You can
say "the word I used was 'doubt'",
You have an interesting interpretation of either "denied", "true" or
"doubt". Calling "I doubt" a _claim_ is really nonsensical.
but the important thing is that's enough to *strongly* discourage
me
from making the effort. I don't know if Ralf "felt" the same; I'm
glad he went ahead and did it.
_After_ looking up the XEmacs history. You conveniently forget this
little detail time and again.
I respect your judgment and knowledge of Emacs internals, and if you
say it's not there, even with some level of doubt,
I did not say "it's not there" with some level of doubt, I said I
_doubted_ it being there. These word games are tiring.
But the Emacs (no "X"!) history was the crucial datum!
Which was becoming plausible just after checking the XEmacs history.
Which you conveniently forgot.
Note, this is not *blame*, I simply point out that your comments
*could* have led to continued impasse. You clearly didn't intend to
look, I was discouraged from looking. It's due to raw good fortune
(and of course, Ralf's good will!) that somebody did look,
In the XEmacs history, since the question was where XEmacs got this.
And it turned out it was from Emacs, where the corresponding bug was
_not_ reported or present.
and the whole thing could be resolved with the amount of effort
I'm
willing to make.
If you had, as suggested, invested one minute of your time in
vc-annotate on your copy instead of half an hour in mud-slinging, we'd
be there, too. Even if you consider just your own time, you are not
making efficient use of it.
You could say "Steve, you put far more effort into this flame
fest
than it would have taken to do the research." And that would be
correct, but very shortsighted. To the extent that I accept
responsibility for XEmacs development, the *last* thing *I* should
be doing is fixing bugs.
But rather flame?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
11:35 p.m.
New subject: Changes in font locking
David Kastrup writes:
_After_ looking up the XEmacs history. You conveniently forget this
little detail time and again.
[...]
Which was becoming plausible just after checking the XEmacs history.
Which you conveniently forgot.
I don't know when Ralf did the checking, but the posting order seems
to be the reverse, by about 8 hours.
7:17 a.m.
New subject: Changes in font locking
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
David Kastrup writes:
> _After_ looking up the XEmacs history. You conveniently forget this
> little detail time and again.
[...]
> Which was becoming plausible just after checking the XEmacs history.
> Which you conveniently forgot.
I don't know when Ralf did the checking, but the posting order seems
to be the reverse, by about 8 hours.
Message-Id: <87ps7cmich.fsf(a)neutrino.caeruleus.net>
Message-Id: <87veh4n5cq.fsf(a)neutrino.caeruleus.net>
> I should hope we could do better than that, but I am afraid that you
> are able to convinve me otherwise time and again.
In the light of the above, it seems much of the convincing takes place
in the privacy of your own skull. The mistake about the timing is
surely an "honest" mistake, but to make such a defamatory statement
*twice* without checking (a curious omission, given the frequency with
which you demand message-ids from me) clearly demonstrates your
conviction of impregnable righteousness.
I already told you: please provide actual quotes before applying your
twisted memory and word sense. To call "I doubt it, but can't check
the CVS because Savannah is down" (and it is just getting up again) a
defamatory statement "without checking (a curious omission..." when I
clearly and explicitly wrote that I tried checking it and why it was
not possible at the moment, is really despicable.
You can't with a straight face claim that you forgot this: I actually
quoted the passage to you in the last article in the thread.
I take my leave of this thread.
A wise decision.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
10:21 a.m.
New subject: Changes in font locking
I actually looked up the post you referred to. You really have a uniquely
twisted memory and/or way of putting words.
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
My claim is that you denied that the copy-syntax-table call was in
Emacs 21, which is true. <85ird4lrr2.fsf(a)lola.goethe.zz> You can
say "the word I used was 'doubt'", but the important thing is
that's
enough to *strongly* discourage me from making the effort. I don't
know if Ralf "felt" the same; I'm glad he went ahead and did it.
So let us see what I actually said in this posting:
From: David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org>
[...]
Ralf Angeli <angeli(a)caeruleus.net> writes:
* David Kastrup (2007-03-13) writes:
> Finding out _who_ put that strange copy-syntax-table there for
> _what_ reason should be easy for an XEmacs developer with CVS
> access.
Could have been copied from Emacs 21.
I doubt it. Can't check the Emacs CVS, however, since Savannah is
down. But it would be more relevant to check the XEmacs history
of that line, anyway. C-x v g for somebody having a checked-out
copy of XEmacs, then stepping back the revisions for that line
until one has the relevant change.
So, in _your_ version of the truth, I _deny_ that Emacs 21 is the
source of the problem. And my "denial" is so strong that I tried
checking the Emacs CVS and failed so far, since Savannah is (still)
down.
Since your interpretations of what I actually write are so utterly
absurd (never mind that you don't ascribe motivations according to
your expressed self-belief), could you please in future actually
_quote_ all of the bad things you are talking of in respect to my
postings?
It does not seem entirely fair that my reputation should be the one to
suffer the consequences of your idiosyncratic word sense.
You could say "Steve, you put far more effort into this flame
fest
than it would have taken to do the research." And that would be
correct, but very shortsighted. To the extent that I accept
responsibility for XEmacs development, the *last* thing *I* should
be doing is fixing bugs.
Let me reassure that you manage to bring across _very_ _well_ the
impression that the last thing you would be doing is fixing bugs.
It is just a good thing it is the task of the XEmacs developers, not
me, to understand how this constitutes responsibility for XEmacs
development.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
8:54 p.m.
New subject: Changes in font locking
On Wed, Mar 14 2007, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Quite obviously the bugs themselves and the reporters' demeanor
have a
huge amount to do with it, write access or not very little, and very
few reporters receive cross words, and even fewer are ignored.
From your reply to Katsumi Yamaoka who found added a workaround [2] in
`dgnushack.el' [1] to make mail splitting work again in Gnus with
XEmacs 21.5:
,----[ http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/56508 ]
| "Gnus doesn't work, so it's a syntax table bug in XEmacs" is not
| worth investigating for me, [...]
`----
From your reply to Steve Youngs who pointed out that XEmacs 21.4 and
XEmacs 21.5 behave differently wrt syntax tables:
,----[ http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/56509 ]
| No sane person expects anything related to Gnus to be deterministic.
`----
And these are only quotes from the one of the (three years old) thread
related to `with-syntax-table'. Not exactly encouraging in my book.
Bye, Reiner.
[1]
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
;; Work around for an incompatibility (XEmacs 21.4 vs. 21.5), see the
;; following threads:
;;
;; http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/56414
;; Subject: attachment problems found but not fixed
;;
;; http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/56459
;; Subject: Splitting mail -- XEmacs 21.4 vs 21.5
;;
;; http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.xemacs.beta/20519
;; Subject: XEmacs 21.5 and Gnus fancy splitting.
(when (and (featurep 'xemacs)
(let ((table (copy-syntax-table emacs-lisp-mode-syntax-table)))
(modify-syntax-entry ?= " " table)
(with-temp-buffer
(with-syntax-table table
(insert "foo=bar")
(goto-char (point-min))
(forward-sexp 1)
(eolp)))))
;; The original `with-syntax-table' uses `copy-syntax-table' which
;; doesn't seem to copy modified syntax entries in XEmacs 21.5.
(defmacro with-syntax-table (syntab &rest body)
"Evaluate BODY with the SYNTAB as the current syntax table."
`(let ((stab (syntax-table)))
(unwind-protect
(progn
;;(set-syntax-table (copy-syntax-table ,syntab))
(set-syntax-table ,syntab)
,＠body)
(set-syntax-table stab)))))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
[2] Now I think would have been better _not_ to add a workaround in
dgnushack.el. Maybe the problem would have received more
attention if more XEmacs users would have complained.
--
,,,
(o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo--- | PGP key available | http://rsteib.home.pages.de/
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
12:30 p.m.
New subject: Changes in font locking
Reiner Steib writes:
And these are only quotes from the one of the (three years old)
thread
related to `with-syntax-table'.
And from only one developer. (I am not XEmacs's counterpart to rms,
you know.) Which is precisely why they're not particularly relevant
to the general stance of XEmacs, only to *this* developer's response
to *this* one bug.
Not exactly encouraging in my book.
For *this* bug, you were *supposed* to be discouraged. I've now said
at least four times that *I* won't fix *this* bug, although as you
know now, I'm perfectly happy to commit *somebody else's* fix for it.
But I had my reasons, and I assure you that had the ChangeLog from
Stefan not appeared, *I* would likely have said "no" again.
If you think what I do and say significantly affect the XEmacs code
base, well, I guess I have to admit I'm flattered---but you're wrong.
I'm no superprogrammer; I can make a perceptible difference only over
years. Working on your bug would only mean I can't work on something
else. And if what I say about fixing any given bug matters, it's only
because the other core developers are happy to have cover as they
focus on the issues they consider important.
In general, we do read all reports, we fix the bugs we can, and we
refuse to promise to fix bugs that we don't have the resources to fix.
We help users who try to help themselves. "Best effort", just like
every other free software project.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
2:16 p.m.
New subject: Changes in font locking
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Reiner Steib writes:
> And these are only quotes from the one of the (three years old)
> thread related to `with-syntax-table'.
And from only one developer. (I am not XEmacs's counterpart to rms,
you know.) Which is precisely why they're not particularly relevant
to the general stance of XEmacs, only to *this* developer's response
to *this* one bug.
> Not exactly encouraging in my book.
For *this* bug, you were *supposed* to be discouraged. I've now said
at least four times that *I* won't fix *this* bug,
I think you are confusing the XEmacs developer list with your personal
mail account. If you are asking people to go away on the developer
list and discourage them from posting _there_, you are not merely
addressing your personal priorities concerning a bug, but are very
effectively preventing others from addressing them.
And that is not even taking into account that you are the project
leader. If the project leader on the project developer lists tells
people to go away with their bug report, then nobody else will take
them up.
Turning away any report you feel not capable of addressing yourself is
overkill.
And yet you claim that this work of discouraging people to contribute
is much more important for you as a project leader than fixing bugs.
Not replying at all to such reports would do a better job for XEmacs
than what you do: at least then others might feel compelled to pick up
the problem.
If you think what I do and say significantly affect the XEmacs code
base, well, I guess I have to admit I'm flattered---but you're
wrong.
It significantly affects its stagnation AFAICS.
I'm no superprogrammer; I can make a perceptible difference only
over years. Working on your bug would only mean I can't work on
something else. And if what I say about fixing any given bug
matters, it's only because the other core developers are happy to
have cover as they focus on the issues they consider important.
I don't think you are doing your project much of a favor by "covering"
for them in that manner.
In general, we do read all reports, we fix the bugs we can, and we
refuse to promise to fix bugs that we don't have the resources to
fix.
"refuse to promise" would be fine. But you rather "promise to
refuse".
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
6461
days inactive
6463
days old
9 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
David Kastrup -
Reiner Steib -
Stephen J. Turnbull