Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - RMS doesn't automatically give write access to people who signed papers.
Not having write access would be a show-stopper. Question to MH-E developers: which of you know that you don't have write access, or aren't sure? > - Maybe you could automate the syncing some more and do it more frequently. > > - Take a look at the way Gnus's code is synced. The use of Arch for that is > key. Tell me more. Is there a document like http://mh-e.sourceforge.net/doc/devguide.html that explains the process? I'm not familiar with Arch. Are you talking about http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-arch/? How often do you sync? Do you clone the CVS check-ins including log messages? It looks like the answer is yes and no. Looking at the Emacs log, it appears that many of the messages are "Merge from..." although I see some similarity with the log messages in the Gnus CVS repository. I'm currently syncing at MH-E releases (about 4/year) with Emacs cvs logs like "Upgraded to MH-E version 7.84. See etc/MH-E-NEWS and lisp/mh-e/ChangeLog for details." My MH-E CVS logs are very similar to the Gnus CVS logs (as I look at the Gnus CVS log). Kim F. Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How many developers are involved? > > Have they signed papers for MH-E only, or general past/future changes > for emacs as a whole? Mark answered this nicely. > > contrib, debian, htdocs, xemacs modules. These would remain on > > SourceForge. > > Why? I think you might not understand what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about moving the SourceForge MH-E project to Savannah, I'm merely talking about not having two separate CVS repositories for the lisp/mh-e directory. Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What _advantage_ is there to having [MH-E maintenance files] be included? Less up-front effort modifying scripts with a different layout. There wouldn't be any advantage to the Emacs project as a whole, so I'm expecting that I will be keeping them external from emacs/lisp/mh-e. > BTW, I personally would prefer it if the non-lisp files would go in > "proper" locations, eg. image files in etc/images, etc. I think Gnus > is a very good model to follow on this... I agree. The MH-E package shares images with the mail and toolbar packages. If you were developing MH-E with a non-CVS Emacs, then you would have to be careful about putting lisp/mail at the end of your load-path so you don't get the wrong version of the mail elisp files. If I were to make the requisite changes in MH-E, would someone be willing to make the changes to these other packages? -- Bill Wohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.newt.com/wohler/ GnuPG ID:610BD9AD Maintainer of comp.mail.mh FAQ and MH-E. Vote Libertarian! If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane. _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
