From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: RMAIL, MIME-related bug Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:25:39 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <200310121947.h9CJlhKH006102@oak.pohoyda.family> <6480-Thu16Oct2003192118+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> <3405-Thu16Oct2003205828+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> <9003-Fri17Oct2003082402+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> <87fzhsnkp1.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <1438-Fri17Oct2003201054+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> <87ismj70d2.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1066815275 26589 80.91.224.253 (22 Oct 2003 09:34:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:34:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eliz@elta.co.il, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 22 11:34:31 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1ACFNv-0001tZ-00 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:34:31 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1ACFNv-0003yC-00 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:34:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1ACFNB-0004il-U7 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:33:45 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1ACFJs-0003HX-T8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:30:20 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1ACFJY-00032H-M8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:30:17 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1ACFJY-00031x-Do for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:30:00 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.24) id 1ACFFL-0004gm-Pm; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:25:39 -0400 Original-To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" In-reply-to: <87ismj70d2.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> (stephen@xemacs.org) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:17321 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:17321 I know. The question is why aren't they? SEMI is semi-encumbered (the same legal issues that prevented Mule from being assigned to the FSF), What specifically is the problem? If it is work done at ETL, that may not really be a problem. Since we accepted their Mule code, we can accept some more with no difficulty. I think we intended to install SEMI, but the work of integrating it never got done. Now we have the option of using SEMI or adopting the Gnus code. To make that decision, someone who knows Emacs Lisp well and is not already a partisan of either one should study them both and compare them. Is there someone who would like to do that?