From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Engster Subject: Re: Sync up the org in emacs master to org maint branch? Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 17:30:39 +0100 Message-ID: <87a8a4ees0.fsf@engster.org> References: <87k29d7zvw.fsf@engster.org> <87fuk08i01.fsf@engster.org> <87d1f36xnc.fsf@engster.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36442) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cZKHo-0006OB-7s for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 11:31:09 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cZKHi-0008QR-Gy for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 11:31:04 -0500 In-Reply-To: (John Wiegley's message of "Wed, 01 Feb 2017 21:56:21 -0500") 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: Kaushal Modi Cc: Bastien Guerry , Emacs developers , emacs-org list , Phillip Lord John Wiegley writes: >>>>>> "DE" == David Engster writes: > > DE> Also, I currently have no idea how to continue with CEDET, as the future > DE> where development should happen is unclear, and I get the feeling we're > DE> just waisting our time with the ongoing merge. > > Until the dust has settled, please proceed, assuming nothing has > changed. Move your primary development into Emacs.git. > > The changes I'm proposing don't have to happen tomorrow, and I can still be > convinced they're unnecessary. So if you don't get convinced, we'll just move again, right? No big deal. > My gut tells me, however, that we're supporting an unnecessarily > monolithic development model for no better reason than "we're used to > it". > > In fact, what we're doing feels like if Python included Django in its main > repository, just to solve Django's problems of compatibility, testing, and > making its bugs known to the main Python developers. You are insinuating that my motivation is to delegate CEDET development to the core Emacs developers. This is simply not true, and I don't see how my original mail could be interpreted like that. So let me try again: What I find completely misguided is to move packages out of core *but still putting them into the release*. In other words, in my opinion there are really just two options that make sense: you either keep a package in core, or you kick it out and don't ship it with the release. Say the Python developers would decide: Hey, many people like Django, so let's just put their latest git master into our release and ship it. Would you think that is a good approach? -David