AW: AW: Fwd: CEDET sync

["Berndl, Klaus" <klaus.berndl@capgemini-sdm.com>]

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 10:35 AM, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:
>>
>>> Berndl, Klaus writes:
>>>
>>>  > Supporting not only Emacs but also Xemacs should be a value upheld
>>>  > be tools like CEDET and ECB, even when merged into Emacs. But cause
>>>  > of some really heavy incompatibilities between these both flavors
>>>  > of Emacs it is a smart move to decide where to invest the main
>>>  > power (of development). And IMHO a) GNU Emacs has high potential
>>>  > future (just compare the different traffic on the both development
>>>  > mailing lists) whereas b) Xemacs is headed south (again IMHO)
>>>
>>> The reports of the death of XEmacs are greatly exaggerated.  Look
>>> here:
>>
>> Worms may wriggle, too.  The question is whether there is a central
>> agency moving forward.  There has been recent rekindling of work in core
>> areas, but following years of quiescence.
>>
>> As long as everybody caters for _his_ favorite editor and takes care not
>> to sabotage the work of others catering for _theirs_, the systems will
>> thrive according to the interest in them.  I would recommend against
>> dedicating resources to systems you don't actively use yourself.
>> Putting projects on foreign "life support" is not going to make them
>> survive on their own strengths.


>I think the worst problem is the scattering of scarce resources. Eric
>Ludlam is such a resource ;-)

exactly - therefore my vote for focussing the scarce resources to the most
important tasks - otherwise there will be a very high risk to get bogged
down...

Klaus