On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:10:58 -0700, Carl Worth <cworth at cworth.org> wrote: Non-text part: multipart/signed > On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:42:42 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin at > gmail.com> wrote: > > I would like to hear what other (Carl in particular) think about this. > > If the consensus is for your approach, I would be happy to implement > > it. > > In general, I love the whole series, thanks! I'm looking forward to our > future, faster test suite. >
BTW Carl, while we continue our debate, you may consider applying the first 9 patches from the series :) id:"1309236311-2162-1-git-send-email-dmitry.kurochkin at gmail.com" Regards, Dmitry > Even more, I love the constructive dialog that follows the original > series and the attention being focused on getting things right. > > As for the detail of whether to use emacsclient or Austin's look-alike, > I don't have a strong attachment to either solution. I do appreciate > concrete technical things like "robust against recycled PIDs", "more > robust against leaving daemon's around for some reason", etc. > > Would any of this potentially interfere with my own usage of emacsclient > and emacs server? I use them regularly and would be quite surprised (and > likely frustrated) if the test suite got mixed up with my existing emacs > server (or the other way around). Maybe that's already taken care of > with either approach? (A quick skim of the emacsclient manual age didn't > make it obvious to me how emacslcient finds its server.) > > -Carl > > -- > carl.d.worth at intel.com Non-text part: application/pgp-signature