Lennart Borgman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > >>Well, obviously port emacsclient. Somebody already took a look of it >>IIRC, but nothing has been heard of it since. >> >>And with any other stuff: if nobody does the work, it will not be >>done. As far as I remember, this is a "simple" nobody-did-it-yet >>case. It is not part of any strategy or something. >> > Yes, nobody has done it yet and I believe there is no one working on > it actively at the moment. I raised the issue to see if someone could > do it. > > I have suggested that there might be too few developers on the w32 > side. In that sense it may actually be part of a strategy.
Oh nonsense. How many developers are _assigned_ to ports of Emacs on free operating systems? How many are _assigned_ to ports on proprietary Unix-like systems? Who do you think has the power to command all those resources? Why do you think we are taking years for the release to finish? Because the strategy does not involve assigning resources. The only way to work a strategy is to accept, encourage or refuse contributions. And with regard to proprietary systems, there is the policy that things like Windows-only features will not be accepted. That takes some of the fun out of working on Emacs for Windows, and so might account for a smaller number of developers. Frankly, I find it surprising that the Windows port runs as well as it seemingly does, given the minuscule amount of Windows-focused developers. But that does not change that things like porting emacsclient don't happen by either magic or decree. > I would be glad to be proven wrong. Before you can be proven wrong, you need to come up with a coherent theory. General moping around that stuff gets not done all by itself on your platform is not something that is worth a proof. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
