From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: Purpose of mk/pw? Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 20:52:15 +0100 Message-ID: <87mv1cs1ow.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <87h8rkg24g.fsf@passepartout.tim-landscheidt.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60198) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ebtl1-00063X-HX for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:52:24 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ebtkx-0005CW-71 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:52:23 -0500 Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196]:44411) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ebtkx-0005AQ-1v for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:52:19 -0500 Received: from saiph.selenimh (000043010000000000000469.ipv6.commingeshautdebit.fr [IPv6:2a03:a0a0:0:4301::469]) (Authenticated sender: mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5EB3117209F for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 20:52:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from ngz by saiph.selenimh with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ebtkt-0002UP-Ox for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 20:52:15 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87h8rkg24g.fsf@passepartout.tim-landscheidt.de> (Tim Landscheidt's message of "Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:23:43 +0000") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hello, Tim Landscheidt writes: > mk/pw seems to have not been touched in a long time, and > whatever it did, it does not seem to do it nowaways: [...] > Is it still relevant? No it isn't. > If it was some kind of patch queue, > is that aspect now sufficiently handled by > https://code.orgmode.org/bzg/org-mode/pulls? I don't think there is any plan to use that either. For the current rate of patches, this ML is sufficient IMO. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou