On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:54 PM, John Wiegley <johnw@newartisans.com> wrote:

> >>>>> Jan Djärv <jan.h.d@swipnet.se> writes:
>
> > This might be true in some sense, but it is not practical.  GNUStep does
> not
> > get much attention in Emacs, but it is more likely that a developer that
> has
> > looked at the OSX code takes a stab at it if they are similar and use the
> > same API:s.  If we bring in the Mac port, I think we must drop GNUStep
> due
> > to lack of developer time.
>
> Isn't the lack of developer time being spent on GNUstep a fact that there
> aren't many developers interested in maintaining it?
>
> By not splitting these two, you are losing out on the consistent efforts of
> Yamamoto Mitsuharu, who has done a superlative job at providing an
> excellent
> experience for Mac users.  If we use his code, we also gain him as an
> active
> developer for a very active platform.  By sticking with GNUstep, however
> much
> the FSF may want that, we are restricting ourselves to a developer pool
> interested in GNUstep -- which is not going to include many people from the
> Mac development camp.


If there were another alternative to the ns tree that would produce an OS X
Emacs binary, I would build it in a heartbeat and then choose between the
two which one I will put time into supporting.  Seems crazy to me not to
give Yamamoto's tree a chance to grow.  Is there a git-able source tree
somewhere or is it strictly a patch on top of the ns tree?

-pmr

>