[AUCTeX-devel] Re: Changes in font locking

[David Kastrup]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup writes:
>
>  > This problem has been reported in the past by both Gnus and
>  > AUCTeX developers in a civil manner, and ignored.
>
> We have taken notice; we simply haven't fixed it, due to other
> claims on developer time.  It's been *tabled*, with no date set for
> continuance.  That is very different from "ignoring".

Tell that to the bug.

>  > Talk about double standards.
>
> Not at all.  I don't blame you for *not looking*, I object to you
> *attacking me* for not looking, when you make the same kind of
> decision based on your own constraints.

I dare you to find anything akin to your discouraging remarks in my
posting history on the developer list of projects I am in charge of.

> All I intended was to point out that it would have been equally easy
> for you to look at Emacs history, because it happens that in this
> case that was the relevant place to look.

But there was no point in looking in the Emacs history before it was
established (by looking in the XEmacs history) that this code was
taken from Emacs.

It is not that I have not written this already, you just choose to
ignore it.  It is little games like that which make communication with
you so tiresome.

> Really, if XEmacs were so wonderful that the obvious bug to fix is
> the with-syntax-table bug, you would be out collecting assignments
> for it so that you could use it in good conscience.

You are living in a fantasy world.  If XEmacs worked exactly as
advertised and documented, I'd still not be using it because I don't
like its APIs, its look, and unfortunately, its developers' attitudes.
Certainly not of all of them, but certainly those setting the tone and
policies.  We certainly have our own share of complicated persons in
Emacs development (in AUCTeX, we don't have personality problems as
far as I can discern.  It does not even bring out the worst in
myself), but they don't manage to ruin the atmosphere as thoroughly,
and the attitude towards bug reports is utterly different.

> It's actually very sad, because I should have a personal reason.  I
> respect and *like* you, David, though I rarely have the opportunity
> to express that.  Your bug reports *should* be such a chance.
> Because I find your reporting style offensive, they're not, and
> realistically, it's better for XEmacs if I table them -- if taking
> offense is a bug in me, it's better for XEmacs that I don't fix it.

Please get real.  This particular bug was reported by two different
parties in civil style over several years.  And most of my bug reports
start out civil enough.

When bugs get fixed after I finally start raising a stink, it is
mostly due to some XEmacs and AUCTeX developers getting embarrassed at
the childish behavior of their respective project leaders.

I should hope we could do better than that, but I am afraid that you
are able to convinve me otherwise time and again.

> I wish you'd stop attributing motivation to me.  And I wish just as
> much you'd stop assuming I attribute motivation to you.  It's
> against my religion.

Oh, it would be a start if you stopped attributing actual things to me
I never said, never mind what motivations you don't ascribe to them.

>  > I made no claims about the history of this code: that was the
>  > reason I asked for an XEmacs developer to use vc-annotate or its
>  > equivalent for looking for it.
>
> I make no claim that you made claims about the history of XEmacs
> code; at least on auctex-devel, I'm sure that the majority would
> agree with my assessment that you personally are unlikely to make
> them, it's not your style.
>
> My claim is that you denied that the copy-syntax-table call was in
> Emacs 21, which is true.  <address@hidden> You can
> say "the word I used was 'doubt'",

You have an interesting interpretation of either "denied", "true" or
"doubt".  Calling "I doubt" a _claim_ is really nonsensical.

> but the important thing is that's enough to *strongly* discourage me
> from making the effort.  I don't know if Ralf "felt" the same; I'm
> glad he went ahead and did it.

_After_ looking up the XEmacs history.  You conveniently forget this
little detail time and again.

> I respect your judgment and knowledge of Emacs internals, and if you
> say it's not there, even with some level of doubt,

I did not say "it's not there" with some level of doubt, I said I
_doubted_ it being there.  These word games are tiring.

> But the Emacs (no "X"!) history was the crucial datum!

Which was becoming plausible just after checking the XEmacs history.
Which you conveniently forgot.

> Note, this is not *blame*, I simply point out that your comments
> *could* have led to continued impasse.  You clearly didn't intend to
> look, I was discouraged from looking.  It's due to raw good fortune
> (and of course, Ralf's good will!) that somebody did look,

In the XEmacs history, since the question was where XEmacs got this.
And it turned out it was from Emacs, where the corresponding bug was
_not_ reported or present.

> and the whole thing could be resolved with the amount of effort I'm
> willing to make.

If you had, as suggested, invested one minute of your time in
vc-annotate on your copy instead of half an hour in mud-slinging, we'd
be there, too.  Even if you consider just your own time, you are not
making efficient use of it.

> You could say "Steve, you put far more effort into this flame fest
> than it would have taken to do the research."  And that would be
> correct, but very shortsighted.  To the extent that I accept
> responsibility for XEmacs development, the *last* thing *I* should
> be doing is fixing bugs.

But rather flame?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum