pending patches

pending patches

[Katsumi Yamaoka]

Hi,

I am a sync engineer merging changes made in Emacs and Gnus one
another, and have patches[1] that haven't been applied to Emacs
yet left on the shelf.  AFAIU, why it is pending is that there
are some unresolved problems[2].  Unfortunately the majority of
the changes are for IMAP and I'm not an IMAP user, so I'm not
capable to join in the development.  Now let me make a question;
what do you think a better way to handle them?

1. Keep the diffs (forever?)
2. Merge the diffs to Emacs, to open to many users/developers.
3. Revert the diffs.

+1 to 2. :)

[1] <http://www.jpl.org/ftp/pub/tmp/MaGnus-to-Emacs-pending.patch>
[2] <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/149945/focus=149948>

Re: pending patches

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 20:14:50 +0900 Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka@jpl.org> wrote: 

KY> I am a sync engineer merging changes made in Emacs and Gnus one
KY> another, and have patches[1] that haven't been applied to Emacs
KY> yet left on the shelf.  AFAIU, why it is pending is that there
KY> are some unresolved problems[2].  Unfortunately the majority of
KY> the changes are for IMAP and I'm not an IMAP user, so I'm not
KY> capable to join in the development.  Now let me make a question;
KY> what do you think a better way to handle them?

KY> 1. Keep the diffs (forever?)
KY> 2. Merge the diffs to Emacs, to open to many users/developers.
KY> 3. Revert the diffs.

KY> +1 to 2. :)

KY> [1] <http://www.jpl.org/ftp/pub/tmp/MaGnus-to-Emacs-pending.patch>
KY> [2] <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/149945/focus=149948>

I'm in favor of (2) as well.

Ted

Re: pending patches

[David Engster]

Katsumi Yamaoka writes:
> Hi,
>
> I am a sync engineer merging changes made in Emacs and Gnus one
> another, and have patches[1] that haven't been applied to Emacs
> yet left on the shelf.  AFAIU, why it is pending is that there
> are some unresolved problems[2].  Unfortunately the majority of
> the changes are for IMAP and I'm not an IMAP user, so I'm not
> capable to join in the development.  Now let me make a question;
> what do you think a better way to handle them?
>
> 1. Keep the diffs (forever?)
> 2. Merge the diffs to Emacs, to open to many users/developers.
> 3. Revert the diffs.
>
> +1 to 2. :)

I'd also say go ahead and merge them. Besides the repeated 'initial
sync's (which however should be fixed now), I haven't seen any problems
regarding unexist tracking anymore. I am however using Dovecot, which is
a pretty sane IMAP implementation compared to say, GMail or Zimbra, so
people using those might have other experiences. Still, the next Emacs
release is still quite far away, so there's ample time for fixing
things.

-David

Re: pending patches

[Katsumi Yamaoka]

David Engster wrote:
> Katsumi Yamaoka writes:
>> I am a sync engineer merging changes made in Emacs and Gnus one
>> another, and have patches[1] that haven't been applied to Emacs
>> yet left on the shelf.  AFAIU, why it is pending is that there
>> are some unresolved problems[2].  Unfortunately the majority of
>> the changes are for IMAP and I'm not an IMAP user, so I'm not
>> capable to join in the development.  Now let me make a question;
>> what do you think a better way to handle them?
>>
>> 1. Keep the diffs (forever?)
>> 2. Merge the diffs to Emacs, to open to many users/developers.
>> 3. Revert the diffs.
>>
>> +1 to 2. :)

> I'd also say go ahead and merge them. Besides the repeated 'initial
> sync's (which however should be fixed now), I haven't seen any problems
> regarding unexist tracking anymore. I am however using Dovecot, which is
> a pretty sane IMAP implementation compared to say, GMail or Zimbra, so
> people using those might have other experiences. Still, the next Emacs
> release is still quite far away, so there's ample time for fixing
> things.

Thanks Ted and David.  I believe there's no one who wants to make
it regress, so I've done it.