On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
Why not a public branch? This is truly exciting stuff! (Excuse my
faux pas if you already did....) N.B. If you decide to commit now, no
point in a branch, of course. I'm just hoping we can have more
visibility for our activity going forward.
The consensus seems to be to push it to the master branch, so I will
do so. I've got some other stuff coming up that would be good to push
onto a branch, though. Would you like to see my D-Bus workspace? (I
might need a little hand holding to get started with mercurial
branching. I work with git branches a lot and am very comfortable
with them, but I still haven't managed to learn much about mercurial.)
OK by me, since it's optional (should default to yes but build
other problems can be handled by --with-tls=no).
I think you should try gnutls first, though, although you can document
that choice as "likely to change". Rationale: I have no objection to
preferring nss or openssl once we resolve the gnutls.el compatibilty
issue (even if we resolve it "not worth the effort"), but during the
beta we really want as much Emacs code to work out of the box as
That is a good point. Okay, I have changed it to try gnutls first for
Emacs compatibility reasons.
Please do it "soon" and I can release a beta (which you may
noticed is long overdue, fsck my employer -- not that fsck would help,
I will push in a few moments, once I verify that I didn't break
anything by swapping the order of gnutls and nss checking.
I say, just live with it. People who want Emacs compatibility will
just have to go --with-tls=gnutls for the nonce.
This isn't a real review, so no APPROVE, but I'm sure not
if you self-approve.
Thanks for the "fake" review, then. :-) It was helpful.
P.S. It would be appreciated if you would remove the patch to
configure, and just leave configure.ac for review. IMO YMMV WDOT?
Oh, geez. Sorry. I didn't mean to do that. I'll try to avoid that
in the future.
XEmacs-Patches mailing list