> From: Ralf Angeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:08:13 +0100 > > * Eli Zaretskii (2006-12-30) writes: > > >> From: Ralf Angeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> There will be standalone releases of RefTeX. > > > > Why? > > Because I don't want to couple the Emacs and RefTeX release cycles.
But you might need to do that anyway, since some Emacs features used by RefTeX will require a newer Emacs. Besides, why not couple them? What's the problem? > > What problems is this going to solve that cannot be solved by > > telling people to fetch files from the Emacs CVS? > > I already answered part of that question in my last mail. What, the need to get several files from different directories? That's a non-issue, since a problem that urges a user to fetch a newer file is normally solved in a single directory, if not a single file. There's no need to fetch the docs if the problem is in Lisp. > Apart from > that there are many users who are not really acquainted with CVS > (okay, there's the web interface) and with "installing" and > byte-compiling single files. And if those users manage to do that > (probably by handholding them through the process) they'll get some > hodgepodge of files from releases and CVS. And providing support for > such hodgepodge installations will be quite a nightmare. I'd really, > _really_ like to avoid such a mess. This whole mess (and then some) will be completely avoided if you decide to stick with Emacs releases. If you don't, releasing interim versions will get you at least some of the trouble, since users will be installing those versions in several Emacs versions, and you will have problem knowing which ones (as many people nowadays use the CVS code). I really, _really_ urge you to reconsider. _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
