Re: CVS repository synchronization for RefTeX

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     > However, moving it into the AUCTeX repository creates a possible
>     > specific risk.  Namely, the risk that AUCTeX contributors who have not
>     > signed papers might put changes into RefTeX also.
>
>     No, that risk does not exist.  We don't give CVS access to AUCTeX
>     developers not having signed papers.  The assignment problems of
>     AUCTeX only concern old code, and not all of it (for example,
>     preview-latex, a subsystem of AUCTeX, is completely covered).
>
> Ok, I am satisfied on this score.
>
>     > Given that RefTeX has a separate repository already, I don't think
>     > there is any harm in moving it, as such.  (I already said so.)
>
>     It hasn't: Carsten has worked on it basically without version control
>     or at least version logs at home.  He considered the history in the
>     Emacs ChangeLog to be much more relevant than what he got himself.
>
> In that case, I think this will be, to a certain extent, a step back.
> But we can live with it.

Uh, we can live with what exactly?

> So we can drop this topic.

The topic was whether it would be ok to have Carsten Dominik pass on
maintenance of refTeX basically to the AUCTeX team and have RefTeX's
primary CVS moved as a module to AUCTeX CVS, while keeping the update
process of Emacs' builtin RefTeX as it currently is (namely refreshing
the CVS with stable changes and fixes while Emacs is in freeze).

While I tend to interpret your mail as you being ok with that
approach, I don't find that interpretation sufficiently unambiguous to
be sure.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum