"Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup writes: > > > You conveniently snipped the end of the sentence: > > > > for an XEmacs developer with CVS access. > > > > Do you really consider this sort of creative editing appropriate > > behavior? > > Indeed I do!
I have my doubts that your standards of conduct are to the best of XEmacs. > Your previous post was an ad hominem attack, Aren't they all? That's probably why I have to mark at least half of them with "<rant>" tags as you claim. How about supporting either claim in a believable manner? > implying that the irrelevant personal status of "XEmacs developer" > imposes some kind of duty on me that doesn't apply equally well to > (eg) you. I chose to ignore the attack, and focus on the content. You have the CVS readily available, checked out, and in a state allowing not just C-x v g, but also checking any needed change in. I have neither time nor disk space nor interest to check out a copy of XEmacs. > I think it might very well be useful if someone would use cvs > annotate on the relevant library, and look at the ChangeLog, to > investigate who put the call to `copy-syntax-table' in, and ask them > if they would explain why. Would somebody with an interest in > fixing the bug in with-syntax-table like to do that? It is not like you have not been sent a patch and explanation several times on this list, by several parties on several occasions. That is another reason why an XEmacs developer is required here: people without write access just get ignored, abused or both. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
