21.4 better than 21.5?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Aidan Kehoe writes:

 > We don't have the manpower for a Cocoa XEmacs, though; we didn't have the
 > manpower for a Carbon XEmacs. I don't see any prospect of that changing--to
 > attract more users with a Cocoa port, we need to *have* the Cocoa
 > port.

Sure.  It's much easier to do it in XEmacs than it was in Emacs,
though, even in principle, and we have both Choi's Carbon port and
Emacs Cocoa code to draw on.

Anyway, at this point it's mostly your manpower we're talking about; I
just want to be sure that you understand that Carbon XEmacs is not
going to be particularly attractive if there's no maintenance behind
it, and right now you're what we've got in the way of development/
maintenance manpower.

 > We'd also need to do the sort of energetic Mac integration that
 > Aquamacs did, something almost impossible without a fork. ("What do
 > you mean you want to turn on CUA-mode by default?")

I don't see a need for a fork.  That's a much bigger problem in the
GNU Church of Emacs than it is in relatively pragmatic XEmacs.
(shifted-motion-selects-region, anyone?)  If that's what Mac users
want, I don't have a problem with it.  We[1] should put some effort
into documenting behaviors (especially for developers) and into
turning that steaming pile of donkey-do-do known as "custom themes"
into a useful feature.  If we had those, then we really could skin
"classic Emacs" vs. "classy Mac".


Footnotes: 
[1]  For values of "we" actually including "me", in this case.