Re: install instructions

Mats Lidell writes: Yes. Probably not. I don't think there's really that much reason to do that, and we wouldn't be able to use XEmacs for it without a lot of dev effort -- it would be a Javascript editor in the browser. Why bother when we can keep the website in Mercurial? If we want an online interactively editable site, we should carve out a corner of the Emacswiki IMO. What's more important is "DRY". Steven didn't know that the most recent MSI for XEmacs 21.5 is 21.5.31, and I don't see why he would know if he's not reading -beta or -announce religiously. I don't blame the RE either, these are betas and we generally expect beta users to be following xemacs-beta and building from source. (Yes, the reality is more complex, but that's the historical position.) With a framework, there'd be no need to REs to update the index pages; they would just upload and the framework would automatically recognize the current version from the tarball name (actually, from the LATEST-IS-* file). We could also keep various (very simple) databases of information, and link the website to the Mailman archives more effectively (at least once Mailman 3 comes out; all of the current UIs and admin interfaces are Django-based, and Django applications are very easy to compose into a nice website). Unfortunately linking to the tracker will be harder. _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta