David Kastrup writes:
Let's see whether this makes it through moderation to the list.
think the message you replied to did.
I think that one was greylisting, not moderation. You might want to
actually subscribe to the list and set it to nomail, though.
> > The more you let yourself cut out, the more XEmacs becomes
> > playground for programmers with their own personal projects
> There's nothing wrong with that if that's what the developers want to
I don't know about you, but I profit a lot from a lot of people other
than me advancing the state of the art of Emacs, adding new features,
packages, functionality, ironing out existing inconsistencies. Working
and active ports widen the base of such contributions.
There's nothing wrong with that, either. Do we need two projects to
do that for Emacs? I don't know.
> If we're not going to recruit there, maybe we don't need
to emulate as
> much of the Emacs API as we have done in the past.
It is not a question of recruiting developers but of requisiting code.
Of course it is a question of recruiting developers. That's all that
really matters; if you've got the developers, they'll produce the code.
Now, it may be that the developers want to borrow much of the code
that they're producing. But that's not necessarily true, and the
existing crew certainly hasn't been doing so to any great effect.
That's why I'm asking.
Stephen, I hate to say it, but I have seen quite more constructive
well-argued and heeded contributions of yours on the Emacs developer
list than on the XEmacs developer list lately.
Two out of three isn't bad. However, "heeded" is exactly what many of
my suggestions have *not* been, specifically with respect to modern
XEmacs-Beta mailing list