"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
David Kastrup writes:
> Let's see whether this makes it through moderation to the list. I
> don't 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.
Maybe it isn't all too bad if I can't indulge in fast exchanges...
> > > The more you let yourself cut out, the more XEmacs
> > > playground for programmers with their own personal projects
> > There's nothing wrong with that if that's what the developers
> > want to do.
> 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
There's nothing wrong with that, either. Do we need two projects to
do that for Emacs? I don't know.
I was talking about what makes a single project with a large programmer
and user base desirable. I consider Emacs and XEmacs separate projects.
What I was saying that the large platform and developer base of Emacs is
an advantage for me as a mixed Emacs user/developer.
> > 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
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
If you cut yourself off from Emacs code, you are cutting yourself off
from a lot of work others do for Emacs.
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.
It might be worth asking on the user list too. Users of today might be
developers of tomorrow. Or they might go elsewhere.
> Stephen, I hate to say it, but I have seen quite more
> and 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
Let's say "considered, taken into account, weighed" or something like
that. You would not expect to be able to actually set project
development practices for Emacs, would you? That's really the choice of
those doing the job, the project maintainers. I have no vote with that,
either. But your input and experience is still valued.
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
XEmacs-Beta mailing list