Re: Development suggestions from an ENSIME developer

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: address@hidden (Phillip Lord)
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden
> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 21:23:28 +0100
> 
> > Expect it to be adopted if it makes our jobs simpler, like faster, or
> > saves us from doing some of the stuff at all.  Otherwise, you will
> > have difficulty convincing at least me to move.
> 
> *shrugs*
> 
> As with everything, it will makes things somewhat slower during
> adoption.

That's for sure, but I wasn't talking about the transition period.

> And I can only give you anecdotal evidence that it will make things
> better after adoption.

The number of manual actions one needs to do when processing a patch
can be counted, and the counts can be compared.  The "normal" speed of
each operation can also be measured.  So I see no issues of coming up
with a more-or-less objective assessment of the proposed workflow vs
the existing one.

My problem is with having to learn a new system just because it's
considered (or even is) "newer" or "more shiny" or presents a prettier
graphics than the old one.  These alone are IMO not enough to justify
the effort of learning yet another tool.

> > Also, I think the solution should support text-mode browsers, such as
> > Lynx or Emacs's eww on TTY frames.  IOW, anything that requires GUI
> > and won't work otherwise is probably out of question to begin with.
> > (This requirement is not for me personally.)
> 
> If that is a hard requirement, then I think we are not going to get much
> further with a web 2.0 program. The best option is going to be somewhere
> to host clones for developers, and then use debbugs.
> 
> But, it really is a hard requirement.

I don't know if this is a hard requirement, it isn't mine.  I don't
use Lynx.  I do use Emacs on a TTY, for remotely accessing other
machines, and I do sometimes need to be able to fix bugs and commit
changes from such a remote session.  So a solution that can be
reasonably used from a TTY frame in Emacs or from a shell prompt will
be welcome.

Also, if a Web interface is really required for all the proposed
alternatives, then it means I'll have to leave Emacs and fire up a Web
browser, right?  Because EWW, as good as it is (and it is good), is
still not up to that level, is it?