From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Detlef Steuer Subject: Re: missing autoloads / (void-variable org-version) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:55:09 +0200 Message-ID: <20120426135509.453fe598@vknecht-intel.unibw-hamburg.de> References: <87vcknm43o.fsf@Rainer.invalid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58706) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SNNIX-0008Su-U3 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 07:55:51 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SNNIR-00085J-6r for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 07:55:45 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:52535) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SNNIR-00085C-0M for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 07:55:39 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SNNIN-0004IL-HX for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:55:35 +0200 Received: from vknecht-intel.unibw-hamburg.de ([139.11.181.51]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:55:35 +0200 Received: from detlef.steuer by vknecht-intel.unibw-hamburg.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:55:35 +0200 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org > Since my Makefile branch was merged I've been getting flak for breaking > certain setups. Now, the change didn't actually break them, but I did > make (perhaps foolishly) a deliberate decision to make that particular > breakage fatal rather than silent. It would be very easy to continue to > paper over the breakage and pretend things are working when they're not. > What irritates me greatly is that quite a few of the people that insist > on this "solution" are the ones who would have to deal with the > Heisenbugs thus introduced. So let me explain once more what is broken: > Hmm. I was biten by the makefile change but hopefully my report didn't count as "flak". I have absolutely no problem with any reasonable change in the makefile. But your description of the situation before and after the makefile change is not entirely correct. Before: May be I had a broken setup and didn't know. Nevertheless it worked. After: May be conceptually your new makefile improved the build process. But now my setup was broken. ;-) And here comes the moment when you just wanted to do some routine work, namely publish some notes for the upcoming lecture, normally a one minute job, well set-up and tested. And all you get is some error. Time is ticking away, next org-mode scheduled APPT in 5 min. We all know this. My guess: It was too easy to miss that action was required on a user's side. May be a hint that make targets changed and that under some circumstances make update could fail and a hint with some exclamation marks that batch exporting now requires --load org-install.el and not only --load org.el would have reduced mail traffic a lot. If there was such a note at least I missed it. Definitely keep up your work and improve the build process! I'm happy to change my scripts if I know I need to and better still if I understand why I should! (Thx for your explanation!) Detlef