Re: Use DEFAULT argument to completing-read

JV> Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)iskon.hr&gt; writes: JV> Depends on what you use I guess. Some of the packages have had major JV> updates in the last few months. It is not consistent yet (for instance JV> cperl-mode and ilisp are in need of updates too), but it seems to be JV> at least partially working. The biggest problem of all is that the stable xemacs-21.1 doesn't really exist anymore. Nobody can get a version of xemacs-21.1 with all the packages that existed at that time (except by grovelling through CVS and rebuilding, perhaps). Suppose your friend wanted a version of XEmacs that `Just Works'. What do you recommend? Certainly not xemacs-21.2.27, even though you use it... Hmmm. Oh, yeah, the `stable' version - xemacs-21.1.8. Oh btw, you'll have to get the packages separately. Hmmm, someone who hasn't used xemacs-21.1 for years has just done major upgrades to the base packages - not all the bugs have been shaken out yet. And no one seems interested in `back-porting' to xemacs-21.1. And why should they? They're working on the next version. Hmmm. Better get xemacs-20.4. No confusing problems with `Get Packages Separately' that all users get wrong. No random breakage from the current development line. With the current package model, there is _no_ _way_ for any user to get a stable version of XEmacs. This is a quality control disaster. One simple rule: if the package developer is primarily a user of the development version of the xemacs core, then that package should never make it by default into the `stable' release (I count packages in the stable release). ``There is no such thing as portable software, only software that has been ported.'' We have to have the stable xemacs core release associated with a stable set of packages that work with it. A typical user is happy when their xemacs just works, and if they want to have particular functionality that exists only in a development version of a package, then they can upgrade just that package. The packagizing of XEmacs has been bad for XEmacs. With a lot of work, it could be a good thing. Who will do that work? Martin