Re: XSLT-process minor mode added to xemacs-packages

|--==> "MB" == Martin Buchholz <martin(a)xemacs.org&gt; writes: SY> I'm definitely open to suggestions for improvements. MB> To keep things sane, it makes sense to have an unstable branch of the MB> packages. Developers could check out the unstable branch using Actually, I think this is a bad idea. There are probably lots of reasons why, but the one that sticks out in my mind is that it would be an administrative nightmare. We currently have 88, yep *Eighty-eight* packages, I keep two copies of the xemacs-packages CVS source tree locally, one for testing/building and a clean copy from which I do all CVS commits/updates etc. That's 264 (if you include cvs.xemacs.org) packages that I keep abreast of. And you want to double that number by having an unstable branch. Man, my wife already thinks I love the computer more than her. :-) In a perfect world (well one of my versions of a perfect world, at least), each and every package would have an active maintainer. That maintainer would keep their development tree somewhere else, such as SourceForge, and only commit tested stable versions of their code to our CVS. But alas, it's not a perfect world... And if I ever get some time to do it, I'm going to start posting lists of packages that have no maintainer and try to encourage adoption. MB> The hard part of this is committer education. There are far more MB> xemacs packages committers than core committers, at least potentially. Another reason for stricter controls on who gets commit privileges. But that's a can of worms that I don't wish to re-open. Especially since everyone has been so good lately. :-) -- |---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: 9E7E2820>---| | XEmacs - It's not just an editor. | | It's a way of life. | |------------------------------------&lt;youngs(a)xemacs.org&gt;---|