Bug#841294: Overrule maitainer of "global" to package a new upstream version
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 02:39:44PM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 8 décembre 2016 23:32 +1030, Ron <ron@debian.org> :
>
> > One is whatever it is that the third-party ggtags wrapper needs, which
> > aiui is what Vincent and Punit are most annoyed about. But I don't
> > use emacs, and ggtags isn't even in Debian - and they haven't even
> > told me what error they see, let alone what operation(s) trigger it.
> >
> > Vincent just gave me the output of global's short --help, and said
> > "look, there's new options" - but we don't even know if it's actually
> > a 'missing' command line option that it fails on (or which one that
> > might be), or something else entirely. My hunch is that one would
> > probably be pretty trivial to fix - either in ggtags or global, or
> > both - if someone who uses it engages with what I asked originally,
> > to file a separate bug from the 'new upstream' one, detailing the
> > actual problem, and is willing to test any proposed fixes even if
> > they aren't up to actually submitting a patch for that themselves.
> > I don't mind writing a patch if we know what actually needs patching.
>
> And for this particular case, you didn't asked for anything more. You
> just said nothing.
This was the very simple question I asked, and your non-response to it:
>> I am using gg-tags in Emacs and the current version of global in
>> Debian just doesn't work with this mode.
>
> What changed incompatibly to make it not work? And what would need
> patching to fix that?
>
> I'd really much rather see problems get fixed than layered under even
> more problems. If someone familiar with Emacs has some details of
> what doesn't work, and what needs to be done so that it will, that
> sounds like a separate bug to be addressed to me.
Some arguments seem to not exist in previous versions. I did not
investigate more
How much am I supposed to hound you when you give a non-answer?
I've asked you again several times here, and each time you put in a
bunch of work to trot out some new accusations, but do nothing to
actually answer the question.
Reply to: