Re: Contributors and maintainers

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer" <address@hidden> writes:

> How about, *first* of all, the latest version of my ELPA patch gets applied,
> so there is an *immediate* benefit to Emacs users. Claiming that a single
> line of duplicated code outweighs that would be absurd.

It is not absurd to us, who maintain Emacs. Telling us that our concerns are
absurd is inconsiderate.

Your current patch has been rejected. You should be working with us to
formulate an acceptable patch, rather than constantly arguing about why your
patch should be accepted, or inciting the venom of those disaffected with
emacs-devel to gain moral support for your position.

You underestimate our desire for a correctly behaving `shell-quote-argument'.
In that, I believe we're in perfect agreement. What we want is a test to make
these weaknesses clear to us, not only so that the improvement may be
technically grounded, but as documentation and evidence that it will never
break in future.

Instead, the way I feel right now is that you want to ram your code down our
throats, and are castigating us for not elevating your concern to same degree
of importance you feel it is. This is just one issue out of hundreds we have
on our plate. To be an effective contributor means working with us, not
against us, to improve Emacs.

If our concerns lead to make-work or inefficiencies sometimes, consider that
an opportunity to demonstrate your willingness to be a good citizen. That
would buy you a lot more social credit when it comes to the next patch, than
fighting for the specific outcome you want.

John