8:41 a.m.
Hi,
The XEmacs info page for programming language modes is quite out of
date. I submitted a patch to update the C mode stuff in October
http://list-archive.xemacs.org/xemacs-patches/200410/msg00035.html
I have the time and the inclination to keep fixing this kind of
documentation. How do I get some one to commit this? Or veto it? Or
get it into the the next 21.4 release (or is that a no-no?).
Or find out if I'm listed in some major xemacs developer kill
file....;-)
Cheers!
Shyamal
10:35 a.m.
The XEmacs info page for programming language modes is quite
out of date. I submitted a patch to update the C mode stuff
in October
http://list-archive.xemacs.org/xemacs-patches/200410/msg00035.html
I have the time and the inclination to keep fixing this kind
of documentation. How do I get some one to commit this? Or
veto it? Or get it into the the next 21.4 release (or is that
a no-no?).
Or find out if I'm listed in some major xemacs developer kill
file....;-)
We'll get this resolved.
In the meantime, take a look at the latest GNU docs. Much of the stuff
there can be lifted straight into XEmacs.
3:01 p.m.
"Ben" == Ben Wing <ben(a)666.com> writes:
Ben> We'll get this resolved.
Thanks for the update.
Ben> In the meantime, take a look at the latest GNU docs. Much of
Ben> the stuff there can be lifted straight into XEmacs.
I have looked at the GNU docs. However, Stephen had warned me not to
copy from there without "express permission":
http://list-archive.xemacs.org/xemacs-beta/200409/msg00310.html
Not knowing the significance of this I simply wrote each and every
line in the patch without looking into the GNU manual very much at all
during the period. I believe the patch is up to the latest GNU docs,
but different in detail (e.g. Emacs does not ship old-c-mode, and CC
mode is built in, XEmacs uses a package system, etc.)
Cheers!
Shyamal
6:18 a.m.
Hello Shyamal.
It looks to me like Stephen made a response to the patch, indicating some
further changes he'd like to have seen. Could you make those changes and
submit a patch? Once we're happy with it, it will definitely go in, and
likewise for any further, similarly-vetted code you send. The vetting
process may seem like somewhat of a hassle right now, but if you follow
through, I imagine the process will get smaller and smaller as you come to
learn how to follow the conventions.
(In the meantime, you might consider writing up what you've learned. We
have a section on coding conventions, currently sitting in the newest
versions of the XEmacs Internals Manual but soon to move to the general-docs
package. That section mostly covers writing C code, but you could extend
that with a section on writing documentation.)
Ben> In the meantime, take a look at the latest GNU docs.
Much of
Ben> the stuff there can be lifted straight into XEmacs.
I have looked at the GNU docs. However, Stephen had warned me
not to copy from there without "express permission":
http://list-archive.xemacs.org/xemacs-beta/200409/msg00310.html
Not knowing the significance of this I simply wrote each and
every line in the patch without looking into the GNU manual
very much at all during the period. I believe the patch is up
to the latest GNU docs, but different in detail (e.g. Emacs
does not ship old-c-mode, and CC mode is built in, XEmacs
uses a package system, etc.)
I wrote to RMS about this. He said that he would probably grant approval
for stuff taken from the GNU manual, provided we showed him stuff first. We
need test cases, so by all means go ahead and use stuff from the GNU manual,
and you will be of great service.
8:28 p.m.
"Ben" == Ben Wing <ben(a)666.com> writes:
Ben> Hello Shyamal.
Ben> It looks to me like Stephen made a response to the patch,
Ben> indicating some further changes he'd like to have seen.
Ben> Could you make those changes and submit a patch?
Hi Ben,
The patch referenced above was actually a modified version to address
Stephen's concerns. I should have put the 'SUPERSEDE' word in there,
but at the time I did not know the convention. I'm happy to make other
changes that are requested, but I don't have any more to make at this
time. Do you still want me to resubmit it for tracking purposes?
Ben> Once we're happy with it, it will definitely go in, and
Ben> likewise for any further, similarly-vetted code you send.
Ben> The vetting process may seem like somewhat of a hassle right
It's no hassle at all, and I do understand the need for the process.
> I have looked at the GNU docs. However, Stephen had warned me
> not to copy from there without "express permission":
> http://list-archive.xemacs.org/xemacs-beta/200409/msg00310.html
Ben> I wrote to RMS about this. He said that he would probably
Ben> grant approval for stuff taken from the GNU manual, provided
Ben> we showed him stuff first. We need test cases, so by all
Ben> means go ahead and use stuff from the GNU manual, and you
Ben> will be of great service.
I restricted the patch to the C mode documentation and anything that
it directly concerned with generic text about program modes. I cleaned
up all the general text that was out of date, and specifically fixed
the C mode stuff. So, for this patch specifically, I don't need to
copy anything.
When I started I could have copied the new section on "Mode Hooks"
that I added to major.texi. However, now that I've already written it,
there is no real need to do so. But if you want a test case *really*
bad, I could use the Emacs text for "Mode Hooks" instead of what I
have, and you could use that to request permission.
Personally I would go with what I have, being the lazy sort that I am,
and not wanting to get into a licensing fest unless I had to. Either
way, let me know, and I'll be happy to update the patch!
Cheers!
Shyamal
I
4:17 a.m.
"Ben" == Ben Wing <ben(a)666.com> writes:
Ben> We'll get this resolved.
Ben> In the meantime, take a look at the latest GNU docs. Much of
Ben> the stuff there can be lifted straight into XEmacs.
Hi Ben,
As far as I could tell from the discussion a while ago the position is
that the stuff in the GNU docs will not be licensed to the XEmacs
manual.
Given that, is there anything else I can do to get this documentation
patch in? The C Mode documentation is really quite broken as it is
now.
Cheers!
Shyamal
12:13 a.m.
OK, I went ahead and applied this to 21.5 and recommend it for 21.4 as well.
Stephen, were there any other concerns you had?
-----Original Message-----
From: Shyamal Prasad [mailto:shyamalprasad＠verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 10:17 PM
To: Ben Wing
Cc: xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org
Subject: Re: XEmacs info file out of date for C Mode (other
lang. modes too)
"Ben" == Ben Wing <ben(a)666.com> writes:
>>
http://list-archive.xemacs.org/xemacs-patches/200410/msg00035.html
Ben> We'll get this resolved.
Ben> In the meantime, take a look at the latest GNU docs. Much of
Ben> the stuff there can be lifted straight into XEmacs.
Hi Ben,
As far as I could tell from the discussion a while ago the
position is that the stuff in the GNU docs will not be
licensed to the XEmacs manual.
Given that, is there anything else I can do to get this
documentation patch in? The C Mode documentation is really
quite broken as it is now.
Cheers!
Shyamal
8:53 a.m.
>>>> "Ben" == Ben Wing <ben(a)666.com>
writes:
Ben> OK, I went ahead and applied this to 21.5 and recommend it
Ben> for 21.4 as well. Stephen, were there any other concerns you
Ben> had?
No, just if somebody has an extra life I could use a life about now....
--
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
ask what your business can "do for" free software.
7022
days inactive
7074
days old
7 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Ben Wing -
Shyamal Prasad -
Stephen J. Turnbull