From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/80314 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: RE: smtp crap Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:01:19 -0700 Message-ID: References: <8739f4kzp3.fsf@catnip.gol.com><87ipo0p1bc.fsf@stupidchicken.com><58C87CB9F44943A7BBE78F2D6B62A850@us.oracle.com><83botsf06d.fsf@gnu.org><83k48cxj85.fsf@gnu.org><20FFD44DE7DF42C78FDDA3EF06397A78@us.oracle.com><83y5wrw53e.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1318377699 4804 80.91.229.12 (12 Oct 2011 00:01:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:01:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: cyd@stupidchicken.com, ding@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, pj@irregularexpressions.net, larsi@gnus.org, miles@gnu.org To: "'Tim Cross'" , "'Eli Zaretskii'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 12 02:01:34 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RDmGM-00039l-7s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 02:01:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40888 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDmGL-0003EF-Py for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:01:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:57477) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDmGH-0003Dz-SB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:01:31 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDmGG-0002PG-G8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:01:29 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com ([141.146.126.227]:23544) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RDmGD-0002Oi-Uk; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:01:26 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p9C01LLr030277 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:01:22 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt358.oracle.com (acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9C01Jig017921 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:01:20 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt113.oracle.com (abhmt113.oracle.com [141.146.116.65]) by acsmt358.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p9C01Dq4026020; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:01:13 -0500 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.50.234) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:01:13 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcyIaypVW+tFjj/LRTK7g733GhiQZwAADPaQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090208.4E94D8D3.002D:SCFMA922111,ss=1,re=-4.000,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-Received-From: 141.146.126.227 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:144935 gmane.emacs.gnus.general:80314 Archived-At: > If the big blocker to getting this right is that we are in pretest and > therefore cannot make significant change, then surely, given that the > current proposed solutions are less than adequate, the sensible > solution is to delay making ANY change to default behaviour until we > have a good solution. It makes no sense to push forward with something > that obviously has significant usability issues because of some > arbitrary pretest condition. Hear, hear! Get it right! Precisely. Stop worrying about hurrying up the pretest. Make the release fully baked, something to be proud of. Take the time to fix bugs that we already know about (e.g. `display-buffer' fallout). Some people (you know who you are) used to scream, groan, and holler when Richard used to take pains to fix bugs and get the doc right before publishing a release. The release cycle was too long, was the complaint. I did not complain about that, and I wish we still had the same careful policy. It was a breath of fresh air compared to the usual throw-some-software-over-the-wall hustle. There should be no rush to add a 24th notch to anyone's belt. This bug-reporting-by-email mess-up was signaled as far back as January 2010 (almost 2 years ago) - see bugs #5299, #7469, and #8595. Sometimes there was a bit of a response in terms of trying to fix things. But to the last go-round, which implemented the config-dialog-from-hell (reported as far back as Nov 2010 - a year ago), complaints essentially got no attention. The problem wrt reporting bugs using `emacs -Q' was passed over in silence by the maintainers, except for being dismissed by Stefan with "If it hurts don't do it". If it weren't for Miles adding his voice recently I'm sure there would not be this discussion now. Hard to tell whether the discussion will have any effect, but at least it seems that people are starting to think about the problem and possible solutions. > If the arguments for changing the default > are valid and the majority of emacs users have to use smtpmail rather > than local MTAs or don't configure emacs as a MUA and the default MUA > settings are most often broken due to misconfigured local MTAs, then > email submission under -Q is already broken for a majority of users > and has been for some time. Therefore, leaving things as they are > until the post-24 release is not going to make matters worse. Yup.