Michael Sperber writes:
Neal Becker <ndbecker2(a)gmail.com> writes:
> On Wednesday 05 March 2008, Michael Sperber wrote:
>> Neal Becker <ndbecker2(a)gmail.com> writes:
>> > Yes, but how do I know which revision I need?
>> I just re-read the thread, and am not following: Didn't Jerry suggest
>> that you're using an XEmacs that's too old? Have you tried using the
>> latest state of the xemacs-beta repository?
> I thought he said the patch was not in xemacs-beta, only in the
> other hg repo (sorry, I forgot the name).
Yes, but they've been synched since.
Mike, please be more verbose when it's obvious that the process is not
understood. Not everybody is going to know exactly what's going on.
It won't hurt to explain every time until people can be expected to be
familiar with the process. It would also help those of us who do know
how it's supposed to work if you would say how often you and Vin are
actually doing the synch so everybody knows how much lag to expect.
Each patch is committed first to the "xemacs" repo. A few days
are allowed for code review and obvious bugs to surface. If no
issue is raised, the patch is pushed to the "xemacs-beta" repo.
Currently patch flow is intermittent, and lags have been 3--5
days since we generally push a bunch of patches at one time.
We don't announce these pushes because it would just be an
annoyance most of the time.
In this case you just happened to post a day after the patch hit
"xemacs", and during the discussion the repos got synched. If you
"hg pull" in your "xemacs-beta" now, Jerry's patch will be
included and `font-lock-add-keywords' should work correctly.
Please let us know if that is not true.
would be more than sufficient, I suppose, and by summer you could
probably abbreviate it quite a bit. It's *really* important, though,
that you give a (conservative) estimate of what the lags are.
For my part, Neal, I apologize for not making it clear that the patch
was expected to be pushed to "xemacs-beta" within a couple of days.
XEmacs-Beta mailing list