Re: Release timelines and Unicode2 branch

[Adrian Robert <arobert@cogsci.ucsd.edu>]

On Sep 13, 2005, at 12:25 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:

>>> What I'm getting
>>> at is, is it reasonable to port Emacs-on-Aqua to this branch now, or
>>> should I stick with the to-be-22.1 code
>>>
>
>
>>     If the unicode-2 branch would make your job much easier, I  
>> think going
>>     with the branch would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
>>
>
>
>> To release this code in a modified version, which runs only on
>> a non-free system, would be deleterious to the goals of the GNU  
>> Project.
>> Please don't ever suggest such a thing to anyone.
>>
>
> IIUC Adrian Robert works mainly on the GNUstep version, which is  
> free and
> runs on free systems.

That's correct -- or actually the GNUstep "version" and the OS X one  
are the same code, with a few ifdefs here and there.  The APIs  
provided by GNUstep and Cocoa are almost identical (or at least  
largely overlapping; please see http://gnustep.org for more  
explanation)  The new port (emacs-app.sf.net) should always run, like  
Emacs-on-Aqua, on GNUstep _and_ OS X.  (The "-on-Aqua" name is a  
historical artifact that does not reflect the port's actual character.)

To ease development of the upcoming Emacs.app, I do intend to host  
and distribute the code, including both the GNU Emacs core and the  
port code, from SourceForge (emacs-app.sf.net).  However contributors  
will be limited to those willing to (a) preserve GNUstep  
functionality (as opposed to adding code which uses Cocoa-only APIs  
and making it run only on OS X), and (b) assign copyright to the FSF,  
so that an eventual integration can be achieved.  If/when that day  
comes, hosting on SourceForge will cease.

If someone would prefer some alternative (e.g., using 'arch' in some  
funky way), please let me know.  I'm just assuming no one is going to  
want the Cocoa/GNUstep code anywhere near the main Emacs tree itself  
until it's quite stable.

-Adrian