"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
David Kastrup writes:
> You conveniently snipped the end of the sentence:
>
> for an XEmacs developer with CVS access.
>
> Do you really consider this sort of creative editing appropriate
> behavior?
Indeed I do!
I have my doubts that your standards of conduct are to the best of
XEmacs.
Your previous post was an ad hominem attack,
Aren't they all? That's probably why I have to mark at least half of
them with "<rant>" tags as you claim. How about supporting either
claim in a believable manner?
implying that the irrelevant personal status of "XEmacs
developer"
imposes some kind of duty on me that doesn't apply equally well to
(eg) you. I chose to ignore the attack, and focus on the content.
You have the CVS readily available, checked out, and in a state
allowing not just C-x v g, but also checking any needed change in. I
have neither time nor disk space nor interest to check out a copy of
XEmacs.
I think it might very well be useful if someone would use cvs
annotate on the relevant library, and look at the ChangeLog, to
investigate who put the call to `copy-syntax-table' in, and ask them
if they would explain why. Would somebody with an interest in
fixing the bug in with-syntax-table like to do that?
It is not like you have not been sent a patch and explanation several
times on this list, by several parties on several occasions.
That is another reason why an XEmacs developer is required here:
people without write access just get ignored, abused or both.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta