From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bastien <bzg@altern.org>
Subject: Re: Suggestion: Replace #+SETUP_FILE with #+INCLUDE
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:58:52 +0200
Message-ID: <87objoqrb7.fsf@bzg.ath.cx>
References: <87a9vu5y2e.fsf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54979)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <bastienguerry@gmail.com>) id 1TS1Ht-0000YR-PJ
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 03:58:34 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <bastienguerry@gmail.com>) id 1TS1Hs-0000hX-Q8
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 03:58:33 -0400
Received: from mail-we0-f169.google.com ([74.125.82.169]:50029)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <bastienguerry@gmail.com>) id 1TS1Hs-0000hS-K7
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 03:58:32 -0400
Received: by mail-we0-f169.google.com with SMTP id u3so2021450wey.0
	for <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 00:58:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <87a9vu5y2e.fsf@gmail.com> (Nicolas Goaziou's message of "Wed, 10
	Oct 2012 14:08:41 +0200")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com>
Cc: Org Mode List <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>

Hi Nicolas,

Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com> writes:

> Therefore, I don't see any reason to keep maintaining the #+SETUP_FILE
> keyword. I'd rather remove it and suggest to use #+INCLUDE: keyword
> instead.
>
> Any objection?

FWIW, none on my side.

Thanks,

-- 
 Bastien