2015-10-27 20:00 GMT+03:00 Charles Campbell <charles.e.campb...@nasa.gov>: > Christian Brabandt wrote: >> That is true with many patches however. It works only well, if >> contributors do use it. And a lot of syntax files need to be >> maintained, if only because the language evolves within times. Best, >> Christian > Also because suggested syntax changes are occasionally ill-advised. I > just got a suggestion, for example, that would have obliterated Bourne > shell syntax handling by conflating it with posix shell syntax. And > there've been innumerable attempts to get a LaTeX package supported by > syntax/tex.vim (my position on that: its impractical to maintain > syntax/latex.vim with it supporting tens, hundreds, or thousands of > LaTex packages; instead, the best way is to set up small > after/syntax/tex/pkgname.tex files and publish them).
This problem is orthogonal to the problem of throwing away history when squashing. And it is enough to require *review* (not “making and sending a patch/PR” which is more actions to do) from the reviewers attached to a syntax file (which will replace maintainers; also there should be more then one reviewer). Also I once made a patch that removed backslash from a number of collections (I mean `[chars]` in regexp) where it did not mean backslash (e.g. `[\[]` is “backslash or opening bracket”, while intention is just “opening bracket”). Such changes, as well as &iskeyword -> syn option iskeyword do not need reviewers familiar with the language. (Obviously it was not merged. You can find the patch somewhere in this mailing list.) It is as well easier to switch the reviewer then the maintainer in case maintainer opinion contradicts with the official position: maintainer role creates more obligations then reviewer. === With reviewers replacing the maintainers I can open a PR which changes `setlocal iskeyword` to `syntax option iskeyword` and it will be accepted once all reviewers accept, without much problems, even if policy “changes that do not alter the highlighting produced by syntax files may be accepted without reviewing by syntax file reviewer” will not be present. *One* PR. With maintainers it would be needed to 1. bother me with creating 100500 messages to maintainers and tracking all the replies 2. bother maintainers with creating 10500 pull requests or patches 3. bother Bram with merging all of them *one by one*. === In any case what you said does not justify “squash the world” policy. > > Regards, > Chip Campbell > > -- > -- > You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. > Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. > For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "vim_dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to vim_dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
