>>>> "Les" == Les Schaffer
> The GTK stuff is explicitly listed as "experimental".
Les> so therefore don't respond to bug reports????
Yes, exactly. It's in the priority queue at low priority, what more
can we guarantee?
We are trying to turn 21.4 into something that allows us to say
"There's no point in 21.1 any more, 21.4 is all that and much more."
It isn't there yet, and until it is, _I_ have _no_ time for GTK, and
I'm not going to ask people who pay attention to my requests to work
on it, either. Sorry, that's the way it has to be.
Les> just to be clear here: i am not complaining about there being
Les> bugs in the gtk code, not complaining about perhaps needing
Les> to fix them myself, not complaining about gtk being
Les> am complaining about lack of response especially since i had
Les> the intent to pitch in and help out. i'd be happy with just a
Les> pointer like, oh, go look in the blah-blah code section, and
Les> i would be off and running.
The GTK port was basically implemented by one guy, Bill Perry, in a
few months on contract to a company which doesn't exist anymore.
If he doesn't respond, there are no other experts yet. Me, I read all
bug reports. If they don't ring a bell and aren't relevant to 21.4
support, they go into my round.tuit file at nice 10 (which now has
over 400 messages in it since April), and I say a quick prayer that
the expert will read them and answer.
But I had no pointers to give, except to Bill, which I did, and a
short essay on how you might go about gathering support for your
Les> um, i thought thats why i posted to this list: thinking there
Les> might be like minded people wanting to sort out the gtk
Les> stuff. if noone responded ON THE LIST, why would they respond
Les> to offlist requests???
Well, for starters the subject was a little off-putting. Flamebait,
even. Many people would prefer not to <AOL> on that.
Or maybe they may not be reading the list due to general lack of
progress on GTK and unwillingness to take initiative themselves. Or
maybe they read it, but didn't have a clue to offer. But they might
respond to personal mail if someone took that initiative to actually
cull the archives for people who had posted multiple times or
otherwise showed pretty strong interest.
Yes, personal communication actually works. It's especially important
when there's something you think needs doing but the powers that be
seem uninterested. I'm well aware that the review board's, and
especially my, attitude has a chilling effect on some of these
projects. That's part and parcel of the responsibility of
maintainership. We don't like that effect, but we can't avoid it if
we're going to concentrate effort, including other people's, on
getting 21.4 perfected.
Eg, really, I'd rather _you_ work on the font-lock problems. If you
don't have interest, by all means, work on GTK. I have to make those
priorities public. That's what we call "leadership." In the face of
that, to get people to respond honestly, you may have to go off-line.
That's how 21.4 itself happened, as well as other things over the past
year. Man, I _been_ where you are, I did what I suggested that you
do, it bloody well worked. That's why I recommended it to you.
Les> is the xemacs-beta list essentially now a closed list where
Les> only select coders are collaborating on code? if so, i will
Les> unsub so as to not disturn your efforts further.
Not at all. Did anyone say "that's OT?" Of course not. I do read
everything on the list. I just don't respond when all I have to post
is "I don't know." There's nothing wrong with not responding if you
have nothing to contribute to the thread.
Please note, at this point you're no longer asking for collaboration.
You're asking for people to drop whatever it is they're already doing
and work on what bugs you. (That is the unavoidable inference from
the phrasing of the subject.) _There's nothing wrong with that_, and
xemacs-beta is _exactly_ the place to start. I wish more people would
do it. Hey, you've already gotten at least one positive response.
All I was doing is to point out that we have explicitly said "this is
cool, we'd love it if someone _else_ would pick it up and run with it,
but it is not part of what we can encourage devoting effort to
supporting (_yet_)." That's what "experimental" means in practice.
There are probably a dozen features like that in 21.4.
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Don't ask how you can "do" free software business;
ask what your business can "do for" free software.