On Jul 15, 2013 3:02 AM, "Lech Lorens" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 14-Jul-2013 Bram Moolenaar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ken Takata wrote: > > > > > When I run the test 98 with gvim, it stops at the last line of test98a.in. > > > > > > > call feedkeys(":setl scb\n\<C-w>\<C-w>", 't') > > > > > > It seems that feedkeys() works different on CUI and GUI. > > > I don't know why the difference occurs, but using feedkeys() > > > is not necessary for this test. I think using "setl scb" and > > > "wincmd w" is enough. > > > Please check the attached patch. > > > > Thanks. I also have no clue why feedkeys() was used here. > > Ken: sorry for including you here, even thought only a tiny bit is > a reply for you. > > I have been thinking about writing this email for at least a year now. > This patch is the straw that breaks the camel's back, so here it comes. > > feedkeys() is essential there. > Try re-running the test without the fix that was introduced along with > the test. Magic: the test succeeds even without the fix! > It took 9 days for the fix to be accepted for inclusion because you, > Bram, asked for a working test (one that would fail without the fix). > Now it takes 40 minutes (!!!) to have a patch included that breaks the > test and makes all my effort (I wrote how I needed to use gdb to come up > with a method that would reproduce the problem in a script) go to > a waste. > > I know, my bad for not putting in a comment, but the patches are > micromanaged to the point that the name of the file test96extra.in gets > renamed to test98a.in yet the very point of tests gets lost after only > 4 days (!!!) since inclusion! That's less time than it took me to > prepare the bloody test! > > Bram, don't get offended, I actually do hope that one day I will become as > competent a programmer as you are, but still I think Vim's development > process is severely broken: > - the single point of failure (Bram), > - how the decision what gets included is made with the community totally > oblivious, > - we don't have a development branch of Vim because we want stability. > Therefore the unaware users are without a single warning presented > with 7.3.970 which breaks half of syntax scripts, makes the rest 10 > times slower, breaks regular expressions and introduces random > crashes. Only after a number of patches and becoming stable is the > only branch renamed to 7.4 alpha! > - we manage patches as files (as opposed to the distributed VCS way: > pull requests) because it allegedly "just works". Yet there was > a spell of a few weeks where every single week there was at least one > patch which was either applied twice, applied only partly or applied > to a wrong part of code. How can it "just work" if it so obviously > doesn't work?
Just in case somebody missed previous threads on the similar topic: - https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/vim_dev/OlkOgDEDAq0 - https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/vim_dev/hAg_60fEdvM - https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/vim_dev/78RMC7ajGfE > All this means that a lot of effort of developers goes to a waste: > - because Bram can't (how could he possibly? He's a man: he needs to > eat, to sleep and to rest) evaluate all the possible patches and they > are added to the mythical todo.txt which means their changes of > getting included drop to almost 0, > - even though a patch got to todo.txt (and therefore will not be > included) people still work on it because they believe it will, > - people prepare a patch to fix something, a fix is published but the > solution has been totally rewritten; not a single word of explanation > is given, > - people prepare a patch, it gets included but for some reason the bug > doesn't go away. I recently had to re-debug Vim after my fix got > included only to discover that a line from my patch was not included. > The funny thing was that I did include a test and this single stable > branch of Vim was published with a failing test. > > For some reason how people waste their time is OK because they volunteer > to waste their time, they are the guilty ones. But it also means that > Bram's time gets wasted: > - he needs to update todo.txt, > - he won't explain what was wrong with a patch so people will submit > those incorrect patches which Bram will have to rewrite, > - he needs to fix the problems with the mis-applied patches. > > I used the pronoun "we" to mean "community" but the sorry state of Vim > development community is that IT DOES NOT EXIST. "Community" implies > a N-to-M relation between its members where N,M > 1. Here it's > a one-to-many relation between Bram and multiple patch submitters > because Bram has to evaluate every single patch. This means there's very > little incentive to examine each other's work (I will check your patch, > this way you will be more likely to check mine). That's why these > I-would-appreciate-it-if-some-people-tried-it-out emails from Bram get > so little response (and because people know that their work might go to > a waste). People work to scratch their own itches; there's no point in > scratching the itches of others. > > I could write more but I think there's no point – this already got quite > long. I believe these things drive people away from Vim development or > make them one-time contributors. There used to be a nice small community > of contributors to vim-extended. We produced a number of stable, well > tested (we – as in more than an I – used them on daily basis!) features, > most of which got abandoned (because there was no change of them going > into mainline Vim. Instead the (still buggy) conceal feature got > included because someone convinced Bram it would be nice to be able turn > a text editor into e.g. a web browser. Some bugs simply got renamed as > features and everyone's happy. > > I don't know why I'm writing this. I don't hope this email will change > anything. I *AM SORRY* and perhaps I believe that sharing will somehow > help me. I am a contributor of around 50-100 patches to Vim, I've been > here for 5 years and I don't feel I'm being taken seriously. I know > there are many others that will come and replace me, people whose work > could replace what I have done (I have seen one of the issues in > todo.txt solved 3 times before it got removed from todo.txt) but this > doesn't make it any less wrong. I don't deserve it. And I don't deserve > to have this email ignored. > > Lech Lorens > > -- > -- > You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. > Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. > For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
