Re: CVS repository synchronization for RefTeX

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     I mean, let us just ask: are there any Emacs developers
>     listening who can imagine themselves working on RefTeX?
>
> I am not sure why that question is relevant.  We may have a shortage
> of people who would want to maintain RefTeX, but that isn't a matter
> of where the repository is.
>
> 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.

> 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).

>     the time frame for folding AUCTeX into Emacs will probably be
>     still years because of copyright paper reasons (we are
>     progressing there, but not really fast).
>
> Are there any current contributors to AUCTeX who have not yet signed
> papers for Emacs (which would include RefTeX)?

No.  It is only old contributors, and we covered all of the principal
ones.  The rest may be a lot of work, but the actual amounts of code
concerned are not too extensive as far as I can see.

-- 
David Kastrup