Re: [PATCH] Add shell-quasiquote.

[Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> address@hidden (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") writes:
>
>> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> address@hidden (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") writes:
>>>
>>>> This tells me that this development community (or at least certain
>>>> people in it) don't want my contribution for inexplicable reasons, in
>>>> particular not technical reasons.  I do not see any possible sensible
>>>> definition of "the needs of the Emacs Project" that would lead to the
>>>> behavior I've seen from certain people here, so I disagree absolutely
>>>> that it could possibly be a misunderstanding on my side.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Moreover, I've been warned about emacs-devel by multiple people before,
>>>> and about a certain member of it in particular, and I did not believe it
>>>> could possibly be this bad.
>>>
>>> You don't need to speak in riddles.  I am quite used to seeing my name
>>> explicitly written in such contexts.
>>
>> This had nothing to do with you.  The bug report discussion hopefully
>> makes it clear who I'm talking about.  Sorry about the misunderstanding,
>> really.
>
> Well, presumably Eli then.  If you digged through the Emacs developer
> archives of the last 20 years or so, I think you'll easily find about
> 3000 mails from Eli amounting to "please don't break the MSDOS port of
> Emacs gratuitously" and probably 1000 mails amounting to "please don't
> sabotage right-to-left typesetting", many in threads of the "why should
> we even care about _that_" variety.
>
> In the end, Emacs is better in some respects due to at last someone
> taking responsibility for caring about minority interests.  And since
> Emacs serves so many interests, it has become second nature to most
> developers when such objections are raised to just try addressing them
> like everybody else does.

I didn't break anything, explained why I could not support non-POSIX
without Eli's help, asked for proper help, drafted a patch where he
could have just filled the blanks in documentation to declare the
required safety guarantees for non-POSIX systems, but nope...