Re: Pretest

[David Kastrup]

Nick Roberts <address@hidden> writes:

>  > >  > We are currently working with emacsclient. It would be very
>  > >  > good if our changes in emacsclient were included in the
>  > >  > pretest. We need a little bit more time for resolving some
>  > >  > issues and for testing.
>  > >
>  > > It sounds like it's too late.  If the issues can't be resolved
>  > > quickly perhaps the changes should be reverted.
>  > 
>  > What sense is in reverting changes if it is too late?
>
> Too late to include changes in a pretest that is already out!  The
> changes were made after the first pretest for a bug that was deemed
> non-critical by Richard.  It seems a bit rich to ask for more time a
> month later.  If it's quicker to revert them than to resolve then
> that seems to make sense to me.

It seems like we have completely different recollections of events.
As far as I remember, Richard oked getting emacsclient to work on
Windows even after the first pretest (where emacsclient was not yet a
part of Emacs).

There is no point whatsoever in reverting to the state of the first
pretest, namely "non-working".  Whether there is sense to reverting to
a later point of development has not been discussed yet: up to now the
developers tried getting the functionality to do the right thing.
Telling them that they should stop doing so and revert to some earlier
stage would require agreement on just what this earlier state should
be.  "non-working" is what you demand.

Up to now there has been no discussion about where we should exactly
draw the line with regard to emacsclient (work is still going on), but
I don't think that "non-working" would get much support.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum