Fwd: sign off on XEmacs 21.5
Stephen J. Turnbull
turnbull at sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
Wed Jul 16 14:50:15 EDT 2008
David Kastrup writes:
> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:
> > David Kastrup writes:
> > > _If_ you are lucky, the results will be comparable, but not reached by
> > > the same means.
> > Well, sure. But isn't that the kind of argument you've never been
> > willing to accept when I make it? You're the one who's been insisting
> > for years that all that matters is the installation tarball unpacks in
> > the right places.
> You really don't get the difference between two packages being identical
> and both having the full anatomy of an XEmacs package?
Of course I do. Since we don't have the new XEmacs package to
actually compare, who's to say that we won't get something identical
to what you've produced, or identical in function? But that's not the
Presumably you have a test suite that can be run on installed AUCTeX.
If the XEmacs-produced package passes that on all installations, I
don't see the problem. If you don't have such a test suite, then your
talk about your testing is all bluster anyway, because you have no way
to verify that AUCTeX is installed correctly on any sites except your
beta testers, and even there it's all about user habits; you can't
claim anything about coverage -- if someone tries something tomorrow
they didn't do yesterday, it might break.
Sure, that "might break" will apply with more force to an XEmacs-
produced package, but on the other hand it will get a lot more beta-
testing *on XEmacs* if we're distributing an up-to-date package, and
presumably will quickly converge to a level of quality commensurate
with the amount of testing done. That's something we can't know until
we try it.
More information about the XEmacs-Beta