RE: Preview: portable dumper

[David Requena Zabala]

I feel I'm not helping very much so I intend to refrain from further commenting 
on these side remarks, not really related to the main point of my 2-cents-style 
note.

> De: Eli Zaretskii [mailto:address@hidden 
> Enviado el: viernes, 2 de diciembre de 2016 8:29

> AFAIR, you used a checkout of the development sources that was behind the 
> repository tip.  But maybe I'm misremembering things, this was almost 2 years 
> ago.

Yeah, memory is like that. That did actually happen, just later.
Previously I had made an observation saying that the configure script shouldn't 
accept target platform incompatible options, leading to a crash dumping emacs 
build. After some agreement by other seasoned list members you proceeded with 
the fix, which in turn I managed to miss!

Anyway no sense pursuing this subject any further. It's not as if I held any 
grudge about that particular exchange.

> > > At no time in that discussion you proposed something, let alone some 
> > > code, that was rejected.
> > This! no code, good or bad, came ever out of this to be proposed for 
> > inclusion into emacs.
>AFAIK, you never proposed any code.

Again: that's precisely the case :-)

> > And that's for a very definite reason: the novice who wrote it wasn't 
> > willing to put up a fight just because no new C code is welcomed any longer 
> > into emacs.
> I don't know where you got the idea that no new C code is welcome, or from 
> whom.  We are adding C code to Emacs all the time.  Just look at the Git log. 
>  I've re-read that past discussion, and didn't see any sign of such a message 
> in anything I wrote there.

I've been reading the list ever since. As noted in my first comment, it's a 
distinct impression which bulds up over time from regularly reading this list.
By its very nature this is admitedly subjective. Maybe it's generaly shared by 
newcomers as me or maybe not.
As such the point is not really debatable.
 
>  This must be some gross misunderstanding.

Of course it is. I failed miserabily to get my point through.

>  If something I wrote is the culprit, I apologize.

My fault, no worries. No need to apologize, lets just leave it at that.


Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 01:30:53 +0100
From: Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden>

> I don't see it that way. You described a problem, Eli mentioned that he was 
> unable to reproduce it and asked for details. If there is any bluntness on 
> his message, blame it onto the limitations of written communication combined 
> with a very busy maintainer.

I don't have anyone to blame.
If I had, there'd be much better candidates as my own poor English, or issues 
of (yet to be built) trust, as exposed in Mark's brilliant post.

> followed by a 8-line paragraph describing where to begin if you are 
> interested on implementing the feature.

But, but, but... I did thank him!

> Please, it is very important to be rigorous with those matters. You are 
> accusing a maintainer of doing something toxic for the project when in fact 
> he did the opposite

As in all human communication there's always how a given statement is meant, 
and how it is received. Both sides unknowingly apply their own filters.
I never intended to imply anything in that vein. 

> By spreading such misinformation on a public forum it is you who are 
> discouraging would-be contributors.

That being the case I gather I must apologize here, which I wholeheartedly do.
I don't want any involvement in any further discouragement, lead maintainership 
stepping down, or emacs forking whatsoever.

TBH Óscar, it's a bit odd being corresponding with you about this very subject. 
You were truly encouraging and supportive to me at the time.

So that's it. Lets have the next generation emacs hackers keep coming to the 
list and drawing their own conclusions.

Best regards