Re: recent changes to org files

[Carsten Dominik]

On Oct 23, 2007, at 1:16 PM, David Kastrup wrote:

> Carsten Dominik <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > I don't have the time to spend my days on emacs-devel, my energy
> > goes into making org-mode as good as I can.  The version of org-mode
> > that is tested the most is the one I distribute, and the most likely
> > to not have any bugs.
>
> That assumes that more people use the org-mode from your web site than
> the org mode in Emacs, since using org-mode is a sort of testing.

I do believe that many people use Org-mode in Emacs.  But the people  
who use
it heavily and report back fastest tent to be the ones on the  
development list,
and they tend to run the newest version.  Inside Emacs, I guess the  
version that is
distributed with Emacs 22 is heavily tested, the CVS version less  
so?  Not sure.

> > That is the one I am checking into. Emacs.  When I see changes made
> > to org-mode in Emacs I am incorporating them into my master copy if
> > they make sense, and only then.
> >
> > If I would follow Stefan' advice and only check in diffs, the `next-
> > line' code would be broken now.
>
> If indeed this would be the case (and I don't see that right now), it

Well, checking in a patch with changes would not lead to a conflict  
in an
area that I have not modified.  So just checking in patches will not
remove a bug that has (clearly by accident) been introduced in one of  
those
clean-up operations where many files are are modified in order to  
implement
a rule like "don't use next-line in lisp programs".  These changes  
typically
affect many files, and it is impossible for the developer who does  
the change
to be sure in all cases that he has done the right thing.  The only  
way to make sure
is to run these changes by the maintainer.  In that past, that has  
happened
sometimes:  I get an email with proposed changes, with the request to  
check
them before they are committed. For example, Stefan has been doing  
things like
this, and I appreciate his comments and additions, and the  way he  
handles it, a lot.

> would be broken in a documented and isolatable way, and for a reason.
> This reason remains to exist.  Overwriting the change without comment
> or documentation means that the same reason will possibly result in
> the same change being made later on.

> If some code is in violation of the Emacs development guidelines, the
> reason should be documented so that people _know_ about it and leave
> it alone.  Silently reverting the change in a manner that looks like
> an accident will not achieve this.

Yes.  Of course I only reverted the change "by accident" without an  
accompanying
change log.  Still, I am maintaining that the copy I work on every  
day is the most
reliable one, and that any significant changes should be run by me.

> > I do agree, I am not battling, I am doing as good as I can and I I
> > sometimes slip.  But if I am the maintainer of org-mode in Emacs,
> > than I and no one else decides what goes into the mode and what not.
> > If people disagree, and I will quit maintaining this mode inside
> > Emacs.
>
> Basically you are asking that nothing, including bug fixes, may be
> committed to org-mode except by yourself.

No, this is not correct.  I request that I changes are run by me  
first, and that I get
the last word.  Obviously ion 99% of cases, things are fine and the  
will be
only happy agreement.

> Being a maintainer does not mean that nobody else may do work on the
> code.  It means that people in general respect you having the last
> word.  But it is the last, not the only word.

Exactly my words.

- Carsten