Re: Whereto next?
David Kastrup writes:
Maybe it isn't all too bad if I can't indulge in fast
exchanges...
You and me both, Brother Kastrup!
> There's nothing wrong with that, either. Do we need two
projects to
> do that for Emacs? I don't know.
I was talking about what makes a single project with a large programmer
and user base desirable. I consider Emacs and XEmacs separate projects.
What I was saying that the large platform and developer base of Emacs is
an advantage for me as a mixed Emacs user/developer.
Sure, I understand that. And you've been pointing out for years that
you're not getting it from XEmacs. I recognize the value to you and
your users, and I recognize the cost to XEmacs and its users if you
decide you can't deal with it any more. But I can't make XEmacs
developers work differently from the way they do, and I can't do the
necessary work alone.
So I'm asking our developers and users where *they* want to go.
Let's say "considered, taken into account, weighed" or
something like
that. You would not expect to be able to actually set project
development practices for Emacs, would you? That's really the choice of
those doing the job, the project maintainers.
Of course I don't expect to set policy. But it's not just me and you
and ESR whose input is being thrown aside. Stefan and Yidong do not
have the appropriate freedom to experiment with new ways of doing
things, AFAICS.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta