Re: Fwd: sign off on XEmacs 21.5

David Kastrup writes: AFAIK, Nix is a GCC developer who preferred XEmacs for his editor. He has a total of 6 or 7 credits in our ChangeLogs for core, and only 10 in packages, none in AUCTeX.[1] He definitely was never a reviewer, and he doesn't have, and AFAIK never had, CVS or Hg commit privilege. One real smart guy, but I can't claim him as one of ours. If you're going to claim he's an XEmacs developer, please, please, deliver him (and his skills) to us! I remember that. I am indeed missing that part of the history. Which, of course, implies that nobody in XEmacs asked you to do that work or suggested that you do it or cooperated in doing it. Why you thought Nix was "an XEmacs developer" I don't know. I suggest you ask him, or yourself. I certainly never told you he was. He also never mentioned the work he was doing on AUCTeX's build process on XEmacs channels AFAIK, although I knew he was interested in AUCTeX. That he's not an XEmacs developer, of course. That it took years to find people with the skills and interest to do it. AFAIK only a couple of man-weeks have actually gone into the most recent work, which AIUI is pretty much independent of earlier attempts. You'd have to ask Uwe and Mats. This low effort is almost certainly due to the work Nix (and the AUCTeX dev team) did on AUCTeX, as you described. It is unfortunately not the fruit of cooperation with XEmacs, but of cooperation between an AUCTeX-and-XEmacs user and the AUCTeX developers. But we had no clue what you were doing. That was Uwe's task, to keep track, but he probably wasn't aware of the significance of the changes Nix was making. Closer cooperation between the core of XEmacs development and that of AUCTeX would surely have sped up the process of getting to where we are today. When did you get in our way? I certainly haven't noticed AUCTeX in my way. Personally I have this problem that I respond to your posts in unproductive ways, but that's not AUCTeX-specific. That's a strange thing to say. Presumably, the configuration on which you run functional tests *is* the XEmacs package configuration. So it *will* get into the distribution. Users (or you) are welcome to report bugs if the configuration produced by Mats and Uwe is not as expected. It will also get further testing (which may or may not be redundant) in the process of being built (and tested, if tests are provided) in-tree. As far as I can tell, we *are* on the verge of an XEmacs packaged version of AUCTeX that satisfies our criteria, as well as being vastly improved in terms of timeliness from AUCTeX's point of view. So from my point of view while a lot of the things you say were arguable 6 months ago, they really are quite inapplicable to the current situation. Footnotes: [1] This means that he contributed very little to XEmacs package infrastructure maintenance. He may have had substantial contributions to package functionality that would be logged in upstream (renamed) ChangeLogs. _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta