Re: Fwd: sign off on XEmacs 21.5
David Kastrup writes:
> This led directly to a lot of acrimony and frustration that was
> certainly avoidable.
Oh come on. Our "package" filled a void that had been open for years.
The alternative would have been to let XEmacs users be locked out for
another few years from getting updates of the package. If it is
acrimonous and frustrating that somebody pitches in to make things work
for the user, you have to adjust your priorities.
Stop trolling, David. Of course it's not acrimonious and frustrating
that you provided users with a solution. Nobody ever suggested that
you should stop distributing it; nobody ever tried to tell AUCTeX how
to manage its internal affairs.
I assert that we can't produce and test the configuration that
will at
some point of time finally be distributed by XEmacs. The startup files
are different. The file organization is different. The
preconfiguration is different. The manner in which the respective files
are found are different. The manner in which version information is
injected into code and documentation is different.
A test for our "package" is not representative for how your package
works.
This is a very bizarre claim. You say that you have a "package" that
is in every way the same as what we would distribute. Well, in that
case we should be able to aim for the same thing and it will work the
same, and can be tested the same way.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta