From xemacs-m  Thu Mar 20 07:15:05 1997
Received: from macon.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (macon2.Informatik.Uni-Tuebingen.De [134.2.13.2])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA13084
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 07:15:02 -0600 (CST)
Received: from modas.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (modas.Informatik.Uni-Tuebingen.De [134.2.12.3]) by macon.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (8.8.4/8.8.3/AIX-4.1/WSI-1.0) with SMTP id OAA17960; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 14:14:43 +0100
Received: by modas.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03)
          id AA19044; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 14:14:40 +0100
Sender: sperber@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Cc: "Steven L. Baur" <steve@miranova.com>, kifer@cs.sunysb.edu (Michael Kifer)
Subject: Re: efs-patches is terminally broken
References: <199703200108.UAA23704@cs.sunysb.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.105)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: sperber@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor])
Date: 20 Mar 1997 14:14:40 +0100
In-Reply-To: kifer@CS.SunySB.EDU's message of Wed, 19 Mar 1997 19:56:20 -0500
Message-Id: <y9l913in1rz.fsf@modas.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
Lines: 35
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.23/XEmacs 20.1

>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Kifer <kifer@CS.SunySB.EDU> writes:

>>>>> "SLB" == Steven L Baur <of 19 Mar 1997 02:03:11 PST> writes:
SLB> I'm through dealing with efs.  Somebody better debug this if they ever
SLB> wish closer integration.

Michael>     I think EFS isn't ready for integration yet. I reported thrice what
Michael>     seems to be a different manifestation a similar problem with EFS, but
Michael>     it hasn't been fixed since several weeks ago (and I never got an ack
Michael>     from an EFS maintainer).

I guess that's my fault.  I was away for the past week, but will sink
all day tomorrow into EFS if need be.  I'm sorry about this.

I *did* acknowledge Michael's complaint, and I *will* deal with it
tomorrow.  Apparently the acknowledgement never got through.

I also *will* debug Steve's problem.  It's merely that that last mail
is the first concrete account of the problem, and a description of how
to reproduce it.  I have not seen it yet (despite debugging code and
using Gnus all the time), and therefore had *no way* of addressing the
problem until Steve's mail.

I'm moderately frustrated that it seems to be expected that every
single problem report gets fixed right away, and that if it's not
something is "not ready for integration".  There's a whole lot of
other problems of similar seriousness in XEmacs as a whole which
haven't been addressed yet.  What are the serious consequences of the
problem Michael reported?  (It *is* the defadvice thing, isn't it.)

Personally, I think the EFS integration has caused way less problem
reports than I thought it would, but that's just my 2 Pfennig.

Cheers =8-} Mike

