Upstream support of XEmacs in AUCTeX

David Kastrup writes: I'm sorry you feel that way; I certainly don't think so. That depends on how you define "noticeable", and the date of that statement. True, the interest in an uptodate AUCTeX package has not been noticeable for the last few years to an XEmacs developer responsible for all of XEmacs andwith no special interest in AUCTeX, with the exception of the interest shown by Uwe Brauer. I believe Uwe will tell you that we've been generally responsive to him, although due to the differences between the XEmacs build system and that developed by AUCTeX things are quite complex and with constraints on Uwe's time movement has been slow. But Uwe *has* been moving forward, and joined in the last weekss by Mats Lidell, who is an XEmacs Reviewer (== as "inside" as an XEmacs developer gets). Bottom line: I would not say "no noticeable interest" any more, and I don't think anybody else would, either. Your opinion has surely been noted. But "he who does the work makes the decisions." You've decided not to do the work, and Uwe has made the decisions. (In fact, for all I know he's done what you've suggested.) I have a better idea. Why don't you and I agree to discontinue maintenance of this flamewar, which hasn't moved a millimeter in years? With the time saved, I'll promise to put effort into (1) getting the work done by Uwe and Mats into our CVS tree, and (2) getting moving on (at least some of) the bugs and syncing that needs to be done. For your part, it would be nice if if the tarball builder stayed around (ie, you continue to distribute XEmacs binary tarballs for your current release) until the work by Uwe and Mats bears fruit. From what Uwe wrote in another reply, there should be visible results within a couple of weeks, but it's unlikely to be stabilized for a while, and it will be a while before users learn to trust the XEmacs distribution of AUCTeX to be up-to-date and reliable, I suppose. I don't understand the combination of these two sentences. "Keeping AUCTeX running" is something that only you can do. As volunteers, you of course have "responsibility" only to the extent you accept it, but "it would seem completely reasonable to me" that there would be sufficient returns to doing so. On the other hand, "getting AUCTeX into [the] downstream distribution" is our job. There is no real connection to "keeping AUCTeX running", other than developers who choose to be members of both projects, which at this time both you and I are unwilling to do. Why not just let Uwe and Mats do their job? _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta