On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 07:18:01AM +1000, Steve Youngs wrote:
|--==> "sc" == s champ <junctionxyz(a)mediaone.net>
sc> it'll probably be at least a few more days before a diff is submitted,
sc> to merge the new beta version of folding.el (2.93) into the
sc> text-utils package.
That's cool, take your time. One question though, why are you
sync'ing to a beta version? Isn't there a stable version?
There is a stable version; a diff between the "stable" and "lastest
beta" version shows no difference
sc> <snip> the diff submitted, for the merge, would
sc> include a modified folding.el -- not the original code.
sc> still be acceptable, under licensing terms?
No. But licensing has nothing to do with my concerns. The diff
_*MUST*_ be against current CVS version of folding.el.
[nod] that's what i fetched. i'll update the sources again, before
making the final diffs.
I don't understand why you think you need write access to CVS,
sources are available via anonymous pserver access.
The way i saw it, if i needed to submit a diff that was between the
current XEmacs folding.el and an /untouched/ version of the upstream
folding.el, then, for the full synch, i'll have to submit two diffs:
one between the current XEmacs version and the untouched upstream
source, and another with (load-library "folding-dep") added to the
diffed folding.el. Submitting two diffs seemed like it might be a
hassle for whoever had to commit it, and i'll have to wait until
the first diff is committed, before making the second diff; i have no
problem with it.
 see Message-ID: <86snaggbkr.fsf(a)badger.barsook.com>
 see Message-ID: <86ofl4ganu.fsf(a)badger.barsook.com>, for a