From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Giorgos Keramidas Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.auctex.devel Subject: Re: CVS repository synchronization for RefTeX Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 00:27:22 +0200 Message-ID: <20061231222721.GA1424@kobe.laptop> References: <87k60b7hv5.fsf@neutrino.caeruleus.net> <85irftmi8p.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87k60b7hv5.fsf@neutrino.caeruleus.net> <87sley46bb.fsf@neutrino.caeruleus.net> <87mz554e1u.fsf@neutrino.caeruleus.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1167604122 1619 80.91.229.12 (31 Dec 2006 22:28:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 22:28:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: auctex-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 31 23:28:39 2006 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 1H19AV-0003dc-36 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:28:39 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H19AU-0007Mq-AO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:28:38 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H19AI-0007Lu-0x for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:28:26 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H19AH-0007Ld-AG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:28:25 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H19AH-0007La-53; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:28:25 -0500 Original-Received: from [62.1.205.36] (helo=igloo.linux.gr) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1H19AC-00056R-Vh; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:28:21 -0500 Original-Received: from kobe.laptop (dialup105.ach.sch.gr [81.186.70.105]) (authenticated bits=128) by igloo.linux.gr (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id kBVMRjLk009734 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 1 Jan 2007 00:27:54 +0200 Original-Received: from kobe.laptop (kobe.laptop [127.0.0.1]) by kobe.laptop (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kBVMRR7K001710; Mon, 1 Jan 2007 00:27:28 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Original-Received: (from keramida@localhost) by kobe.laptop (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id kBVMRM1P001709; Mon, 1 Jan 2007 00:27:22 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Original-To: Carsten Dominik , David Kastrup , Eli Zaretskii , Richard Stallman , Ralf Angeli Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87wt491b46.fsf@neutrino.caeruleus.net> <85irftmi8p.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> X-Hellug-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Hellug-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-3.627, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, AWL 0.57, BAYES_00 -2.60, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 0.20) X-Hellug-MailScanner-From: keramida@ceid.upatras.gr 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:64583 gmane.emacs.auctex.devel:1490 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii wrote: But you might need to do that anyway, since some Emacs features used by RefTeX will require a newer Emacs. Besides, why not couple them? What's the problem? Carsten Dominik wrote: RefTeX has always had a life outside the Emacs CVS repository, to make it run with XEmacs and with non-CVS emacs. It is still fully compatible with Emacs 21, and it caters for XEmacs as well. There are many people who use RefTeX but still use Emacs 21, and even after the 22 release, this will be true for quite a while. This may require branching *inside* the Emacs CVS tree, i.e. to create an `emacs-21' maintenance branch, but it's not something unheard of. It's exactly the model used by FreeBSD, for example, to maintain a separate "stable" branch along with the latest, bleeding-edge HEAD of the CVS repository. If the Emacs team agrees that such a maintenance Emacs 21.X branch is ok to keep in the same CVS tree, you can use the maintenance branch for bugfixes and/or features backported from Emacs 22, as RefTeX or other Emacs 21 packages get updated. David Kastrup wrote: The people most likely to maintain it actively in future are AUCTeX developers. Almost no maintenance has happened in the Emacs repository up to now. It's never too late, if it turns out that this can help the Emacs and RefTeX teams work closely to integrate RefTeX into Emacs. David Kastrup wrote: RefTeX is released standalone (unsynchronized with Emacs releases), and creating its tarballs and stuff requires Makefiles and similar that are not present in the Emacs tree. This is an artifact of the fact that RefTeX is maintained separately from Emacs. It it was maintained as part of the same integrated source tree, then RefTeX could use the Emacs build process for these things, right? David Kastrup wrote: RefTeX also is maintained for XEmacs. What we have in Emacs is just a fraction of the whole of RefTeX. Do we have a fraction because the rest of RefTeX cannot be made to work with GNU Emacs, or for some other reason? If this is because of some other reason, what is this reason? Eli Zaretskii wrote: Ralf said Emacs release cycle is too slow, but now you say that there are many RefTeX users that still use Emacs 21. This sounds like a contradiction to me. Anyway, I just wanted to say that developing an Emacs package outside Emacs bears additional burden. It is up to you to decide whether that burden is justified. Right. There are two different issues here, and I'm not sure if they can both be solved in the `right' way: * Maintaining RefTeX outside of Emacs means that there is going to be integration effort every time a new `source-drop' of RefTeX has to be merged into the Emacs source tree. We also lose any sort of fine-grained file history we would have if the commits were done directly in the CVS tree of Emacs. * Maintaining RefTeX as part of the Emacs source tree reduces integration effort, and lets us keep a better log of RefTeX changes in the CVS tree of Emacs. It also means that RefTeX for other Emacsen has to be maintained in *their* source tree though, and risks a `fork' between the various RefTeX integration efforts for all the different GNU Emacs versions and the other Emacsen. I'm not sure if there is a good way to solve both problems. Richard Stallman wrote: Then there might be the problem that RefTeX is not in a releasable state at the time an Emacs release is about to happen. This is exactly why it is bad to maintain parts of Emacs in a separate repository. Every such package causes difficulty for Emacs releases. Exactly :) Ralf Angeli wrote: If the part is maintained in a separate repository it is possible to check code into Emacs' repository when it is in releasable state, e.g. when a separate release of the part is being made. Then one can go on developing in the separate repository without endangering Emacs' state as a whole. But this means that it is non-trivial to keep a history of the merges, and resync the official source tree of GNU Emacs with the disconnected, official tree of RefTeX. The people who currently maintain cc-mode and Gnus may have useful feedback, regarding the tools they use for the job. Do you think it's a good idea to ask them and see what they have to say about the best way to merge RefTeX source-drops with the CVS tree of Emacs and keep merging updates, as they are committed to a separate RefTeX repository? - Giorgos