From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Hebrew xlation of Emacs tutorial Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 17:21:24 +0100 Message-ID: <858xffgqkb.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <20070202014816.c691bb82.yotam.medini@gmail.com> <20070202172551.3a25b37f.yotam.medini@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1170519717 9718 80.91.229.12 (3 Feb 2007 16:21:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:21:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: James Cloos Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 03 17:21:50 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HDNe9-0007lc-Ui for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Feb 2007 17:21:50 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HDNe9-0003Kn-5G for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Feb 2007 11:21:49 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HDNdv-0003KI-KW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Feb 2007 11:21:35 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HDNdt-0003K6-9D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Feb 2007 11:21:34 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HDNdt-0003K3-3Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Feb 2007 11:21:33 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-in-11.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.51]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1HDNdp-0008Cn-Kj; Sat, 03 Feb 2007 11:21:30 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-in-04-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-04-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.16]) by mail-in-11.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CB6A115F6; Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:21:28 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from mail-in-06.arcor-online.net (mail-in-06.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.46]) by mail-in-04-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F25CBABAE7; Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:21:27 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from lola.goethe.zz (dslb-084-061-033-198.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.61.33.198]) by mail-in-06.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAE712C88BC; Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:21:27 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 95F311C4CE1C; Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:21:24 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (James Cloos's message of "Sat\, 03 Feb 2007 11\:01\:53 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.93 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:65830 Archived-At: James Cloos writes: > Eli, > > Any idea how much work it'd take to merge the changes between > the (your, right?) emacs-bidi-base and emacs-bidi branches into > the emacs-unicode-2 branch? > > There are only 3 merge failures in src files, plus a couple in > texinfo files and several in ChangeLog files. I don't think that this is the only issue. Eli might correct me on that, but the last time this issue came up, he clearly stated that the bidi branch was not production quality and had serious stability and performance issues. We certainly don't want it to be "merged into the emacs-unicode-2 branch" before Emacs 23 is released: emacs-unicode-2 is a major step forward and apparently close to release quality. There are also other issues which should probably be addressed when reworking the display engine for bidi, like composite character support and antialiasing, so merging the fragile bidi branch might not actually be the best tactic for going forward. At the current point of time, I think it prudent to leave Emacs-bidi on the back burner, and to start thinking about what long-term strategy to follow in a bidi-capable branch (it might well mean abandoning the current emacs-bidi approach) when emacs-unicode-2 has made it into the trunk and does not require major reworks before Emacs 23. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum