Re: Fwd: sign off on XEmacs 21.5

David Kastrup writes: Sure, we've asked if you wanted to do all the work of producing an XEmacs package to our specs. Any short-handed project leader does that! I still don't think it is an outrageous suggestion---many library maintainers have accepted that deal---but you refused, which also seems reasonable to me. That was a chance to start negotiating a more balanced cooperative arrangement, but for whatever reason we didn't manage to. Then you went off and created your own "package" distribution without consulting us at all, which is none of my business. But nobody asked you to do that, and whatever your motivation for doing it, it wasn't cooperative. I have no idea what definition of "cooperation" you could have in mind here. I would be more than happy to cooperate on the basis of starting small, such as getting an 11.8x AUCTeX into our CVS and releasing it (very small, since we're going to do that anyway), and making sure that the XEmacs AUCTeX package sends bug reports to us first to reduce the burden on upstream in the event of future lags, etc. Similarly, on your part you do what you have to do. If you're going to drop aspects of support for XEmacs, though, I'd appreciate being informed exactly what that entails. _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta