Re: lynx-dev suggested addition to lynx.cfg

[Vlad Harchev]

On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Henry Nelson wrote:

> What the heck.
> 
> >  Yes, this is trivial for my tools since they are using C preprocessor - so 
> 
> It amazes me that you still miss the point.  It has nothing to do with how
> well your tools do (or don't do :) their job.  It has to do with 1) their
> necessity and utility, 2) their maintainability, and 3) their portability.

 They have to be run only on maintainer's machine - so portabliity is not an
issue. Others seems not the issue too.
 
> > tool that encloses entire lynx.cfg in <pre>
> 
> Seems you are guilty of what you often falsely accuse me of: not having
> spent/wasted the time looking at what is there.

 Sorry, what it does (in short)? I beat the text still will be in <pre>.
 
> >  If Henry tool are chosen instead of mine, then you have to.
> 
> There is no my "tool" to be "chosen."  What you have is a _statement_
> written in one lunch break (ca. 45 min while munching) that attempts
> to deal with the maintainability and portability issues.  No sense
> in wasting more time than that since no necessary or really useful
> function is at stake.

 If you don't consider that as tool (that will be used), don't say that "doing
so will complicate processing lynx.cfg by special tools".

> What is missing from your equation is the variable "what happens to
> Lynx when Vlad and Tom are long gone."  But that's quite obvious from
> what you've said [paraphrased]: "once it's integrated and released,
> who cares", "if it's broken, you fix it", "if you don't want it, you
> don't have to use it", "no time to do that", "has to be done in three
> days" and "lynx has become a hackers paradise."  (Not to mention the
> more juicy ones like "let's send patches directly to the integrater
> so as to avoid scrutiny" and "you're not a developer.")

 "once it's integrated and released, who cares" - since it's integrated and
realeased, it's considered to be behaving well and somewhat stable - so it
becomes a part of lynx source (lynx-dev cares about it from that moment).

"if it's broken, you fix it" - I don't remember saying this.

"if you don't want it, you don't have to use it" - what's wrong there?

 * I alsways support the work I've done (ie fixing bugs caused by my patches)
   -  seems I remember what I wrote, so it's easy enough for me.
 * If I say "no time to do that" - I meant no time to implement the things
   that need hard concentration and that take more than 2 days
 * seems lynx is not a hacker's paradise - it's a hell in some places. 

> If you had an ounce of decency you would stop trying to ram your
> patches down the throats of us "end-user" peasants.

 Please examples (seems you treat defending my patches against statements I
 think wrong as "raming").

> __Henry
> 

 Let's not start another war (at least I don't have time to fight).

 Best regards,
  -Vlad