From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stefan Monnier" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Improving communication between GNU Emacs and XEmacs Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:09:28 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <200204122009.g3CK9Sf17612@rum.cs.yale.edu> References: <200204111452.g3BEqxb21309@aztec.santafe.edu> <200204121949.g3CJnsJ22647@aztec.santafe.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1018642334 4036 127.0.0.1 (12 Apr 2002 20:12:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 20:12:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: sperber@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16w7P4-00012z-00 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 22:12:14 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16w7fU-0000b0-00 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 22:29:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16w7Ox-0001J9-00; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:12:07 -0400 Original-Received: from rum.cs.yale.edu ([128.36.229.169]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16w7MP-0001Ci-00; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:09:29 -0400 Original-Received: (from monnier@localhost) by rum.cs.yale.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g3CK9Sf17612; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:09:28 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 Original-To: Richard Stallman Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:2601 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:2601 > This is an unsubstantiated claim, and it doesn't get better with > repetition---many XEmacs maintainers have signed papers (including > myself), and if you have questions about authorship, you need only > ask. > > You proposed cooperation, so I thought we were having a civil > conversation, His answer was quite civil, I believe. He just pointed out that he knows about those problems tracking authorship and that his proposal is hence just about agreeing on principle to try and cooperate within the bounds of what is possible and to try to improve those bounds. I think the reason he came this way is because there is a feeling within the XEmacs community (or so I believe) that the Emacs development has generally been opposed to cooperation (even in the absence of any legal obstacle). Whether this feeling is justified or not is of course irrelevant. All that matters is that we make it clear on both sides that we consider cooperation as something desirable. I think this is very desirable indeed. I have been reading the xemacs-beta list for a while and I hope some XEmacs developers can find the time to follow the emacs-devel list as well. If the willingness to cooperate is clear, then we will find ways to cooperate in various occasions. Those can be minor and small for a start. Stefan