"Ben" == Ben Wing <ben(a)666.com> writes:
Ben> Hello Shyamal.
Ben> It looks to me like Stephen made a response to the patch,
Ben> indicating some further changes he'd like to have seen.
Ben> Could you make those changes and submit a patch?
The patch referenced above was actually a modified version to address
Stephen's concerns. I should have put the 'SUPERSEDE' word in there,
but at the time I did not know the convention. I'm happy to make other
changes that are requested, but I don't have any more to make at this
time. Do you still want me to resubmit it for tracking purposes?
Ben> Once we're happy with it, it will definitely go in, and
Ben> likewise for any further, similarly-vetted code you send.
Ben> The vetting process may seem like somewhat of a hassle right
It's no hassle at all, and I do understand the need for the process.
> I have looked at the GNU docs. However, Stephen had warned me
> not to copy from there without "express permission":
Ben> I wrote to RMS about this. He said that he would probably
Ben> grant approval for stuff taken from the GNU manual, provided
Ben> we showed him stuff first. We need test cases, so by all
Ben> means go ahead and use stuff from the GNU manual, and you
Ben> will be of great service.
I restricted the patch to the C mode documentation and anything that
it directly concerned with generic text about program modes. I cleaned
up all the general text that was out of date, and specifically fixed
the C mode stuff. So, for this patch specifically, I don't need to
When I started I could have copied the new section on "Mode Hooks"
that I added to major.texi. However, now that I've already written it,
there is no real need to do so. But if you want a test case *really*
bad, I could use the Emacs text for "Mode Hooks" instead of what I
have, and you could use that to request permission.
Personally I would go with what I have, being the lazy sort that I am,
and not wanting to get into a licensing fest unless I had to. Either
way, let me know, and I'll be happy to update the patch!