From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Sending attachments Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:48:10 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1247597303 7164 80.91.229.12 (14 Jul 2009 18:48:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:48:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ams@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 14 20:48:17 2009 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 1MQn33-0005N6-6U for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:48:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48343 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MQn32-0008Nd-N2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:48:16 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MQn2r-0008IF-9f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:48:05 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MQn2m-0008GT-TX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:48:04 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58652 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MQn2m-0008GM-JI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:48:00 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.pppoe.ca ([206.248.154.182]:22428 helo=ironport2-out.teksavvy.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MQn2i-0007C8-JP; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:47:56 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Au4EADdwXEpMCpbp/2dsb2JhbACBUdB9hAgFhm4 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,398,1243828800"; d="scan'208";a="41579443" Original-Received: from 76-10-150-233.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([76.10.150.233]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP; 14 Jul 2009 14:47:55 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 58A257EF7; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:48:10 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Tue, 14 Jul 2009 06:44:18 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.94 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:112462 Archived-At: >> I may need to maintain Emacs again; past history shows other >> maintainers come and go. If that happens, I want to have Mail mode, >> not depend on something that is part of Gnus. > Please explain why you consider "part of Gnus" to be > a negative attribute. > There are two reasons. First, its primary source is maintained > outside of Emacs. Second, the people who work on it do not hesitate > to add dependencies between one part and another, with results that > one quickly sees on studying files from Gnus. I'm sure they'll appreciate help in reducing dependencies between modules. > Another problem with Gnus maintenance is that, whenever they see the > need for some other feature, they add it to Gnus, without discussing > it with the Emacs maintainer, and without attempting to make the > package independent of Gnus. Actually, they originally did make a specific effort to make message-mode independent from Gnus so that it can replace mail-mode. And then mail-mode stayed and so message-mode evolved under the pressure of nothing else than Gnus. > Another problem is that a lot of the code is ugly and hard to > understand. While this CAN happen to any code, I think the separate > maintenance of Gnus encourages it, since it discourages other people > than the Gnus developers from working on the code at all. I don't know about you, but I'm a lot more afraid of CC-mode's code than of Gnus's. If you agree with that and following your reasoning, we should have kept the old c-mode.el. Stefan