Re: where history expansion fits in

[Carlos Carvalho <carlos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard Coleman (coleman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote on 21 November 1995 13:33:

 >As I've said before, I'm very systematic about how I integrate
 >in changes.  I've been able to improve or cleanup many of the
 >patches that other people have submitted.  If I just `accepted'
 >other people changes without looking through them, we wouldn't
 >have made the progress that we've made.  Take a look through the
 >code for 2.5.03 and compare it with beta12.

Agreed fully!

 >I've worked hard to improve things and make zsh more than just a
 >`hackers shell' that is full of bugs and developed in a completely
 >unsystematic way.  What the development of zsh needs is discipline,
 >not speed.

Agreed fully!

Maybe it's just a question of people knowing your schedule. With each
test/release you could repost the schedule of (class of) problems
you're tackling, like you did some time ago, with the explanation of
why you passed from one class of problems to the other. This way
people will see the position of subst.c, where the biggest part of
Zoltan's changes are.

On the other hand Zoltan did what seems a very good job and fixed many
*longstanding* bugs. This means that his patches are something
important, that deserve specific consideration. Maybe people feel that
you don't consider them important enough to influence your schedule? I
do understand what you mean by "do things serially and
systematically", but it may not be so clear to others...

Carlos