From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dan Nicolaescu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Carbon port emacs-unicode-2 build problem under MacOSX Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:14:08 -0800 Message-ID: <200711071614.lA7GE97U004630@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> References: <47305F6E.2030204@gnu.org> <4731D43F.3060007@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1194452285 29526 80.91.229.12 (7 Nov 2007 16:18:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 16:18:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Adrian Robert , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Jason Rumney Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 07 17:18:08 2007 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 1IpnbQ-0005t7-AV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:18:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpnbE-0004J2-QN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:17:52 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IpnbB-0004H8-1N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:17:49 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ipnb7-0004Cf-Jc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:17:48 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ipnb7-0004CQ-GU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:17:45 -0500 Original-Received: from oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu ([128.195.1.41]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ipnb3-0006cS-9W; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:17:41 -0500 Original-Received: from mothra.ics.uci.edu (mothra.ics.uci.edu [128.195.6.93]) by oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id lA7GE97U004630; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 08:14:09 -0800 (PST) Original-Lines: 41 X-ICS-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ICS-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-0.41, required 5, autolearn=disabled, ALL_TRUSTED -1.44, FS_OBFU_X 1.03) X-ICS-MailScanner-From: dann@mothra.ics.uci.edu X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 9 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:82752 Archived-At: Jason Rumney writes: > Adrian Robert wrote: > > I was planning to ask about inclusion after finishing up the multi-tty > > integration. But anyway since the issue has been raised, is autumn 2007 a good > > time to consider merging the Cocoa/GNUstep port into the unicode-2 branch, or > > would people prefer to wait until after unicode-2 -> trunk? Based on my > > experiences, the latter approach would be much less headache, but don't know how > > far off the unicode merge is at the moment. > > > > > I'd suggest the following timetable. > > 1. Start the 22.2 pretest (hopefully a short pretest cycle). > 2. Release 22.2 without getting distracted by more merges. > 3. Merge unicode-2 to the trunk (I think it is ready now, so immediately > after 22.2 release would be good). > 4. Merge Cocoa port (if 22.2 pretest starts taking a long time though, > it might be better to merge to unicode-2 earlier). > 5. Enable new font-backend by default. > 6. Remove the old font code (which unless someone implements a backend > for Carbon, implies the end of the Carbon port) This looks good, I would also like to add a step that can be done in parallel: - Have the Cocoa port reviewed so that there are less questions about what it does and how it does stuff when it is included. Probably the changes to the common code are the most important. Is the Cocoa port a complete replacement for the Carbon port from the _user_ point of view? Does it support the same machines equally well? If yes, then there seems to be little point in having both in the tree, it might be better to remove the (already non-functional) Carbon port as early as possible (now?). Besides reducing complexity, it seems that there are not that many people willing to work on the Mac platform, so having to deal with less code might be a good idea.