Re: Future of XEmacs
Mats Lidell writes:
>>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org>
writes:
> Please don't misunderstand. The "must work in stable" rule is not
> intended to keep us from making progress. It's intended to prevent
> regressions where a package that used to work in the stable XEmacs
> breaks even though the user is using the same XEmacs they did
> before.
I have a bad feeling that the very same problems you describe for the
future of ELPA and even worse is what we will get into here.
I really don't think so. We've been doing this for 15 years and not
really run into problems with this.
Note that our package system was designed with a core/package split in
mind. As far as I can tell, ELPA is designed only to make it
relatively easy to find and fetch packages.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta