From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juanma Barranquero Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Key bindings proposal Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 17:16:23 +0200 Message-ID: References: <19534.1494.627000.357123@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <19537.40472.267000.563053@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <176EDAD3B9E54E39870FA3F84A5DDF3C@us.oracle.com> <19542.56658.583000.394397@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <19544.1015.468000.280770@gargle.gargle.HOWL> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1280848688 9023 80.91.229.12 (3 Aug 2010 15:18:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 15:18:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Uday S Reddy , Drew Adams , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lennart Borgman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 03 17:18:03 2010 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OgJFi-0006x9-De for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Aug 2010 17:18:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33970 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OgJFh-00035b-Gl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Aug 2010 11:18:01 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=40066 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OgJEV-0002MX-3c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Aug 2010 11:16:48 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OgJET-000241-OO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Aug 2010 11:16:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-gw0-f41.google.com ([74.125.83.41]:59568) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OgJET-00023v-JH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Aug 2010 11:16:45 -0400 Original-Received: by gwj16 with SMTP id 16so2221496gwj.0 for ; Tue, 03 Aug 2010 08:16:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=fLT6ohAAogYcYXJ5oDN1O8+OkE8jUzY5pqT56Ao7bKU=; b=OP2gkSPKNFzy75Jr8UocIbjcKBwBz7yEqVynlV5y8X/E7YrVc1e/NE7vLTw/wgfKrv Ppd4ufDgk2newtqKlFxrtsRjdHtEHXgC2M2wRlB88y//S2dLMk84j3Xce//7AqbB8x+z EoQjSz3B0zKYgW5Pjb03Z45tU2uc8DW0ovO5g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=I/0SpwN4Bn3AZyaiF6y0BVHTiB2OulA8bKy2KpraOO6Rit+rWsSolFI/vNSURhBNdy 2SpNPEB4vmlWJPuYABwNuhnB9asjraWfaLlne4J5v+1dUm1EqweiRmfMgXWG3I7xb0Os ryqY2Q/OBvK7cmH8qepVdqJKqxyrS4Vv4iE9k= Original-Received: by 10.100.12.16 with SMTP id 16mr8216465anl.202.1280848603205; Tue, 03 Aug 2010 08:16:43 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.231.162.4 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:16:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:128195 Archived-At: On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 17:02, Lennart Borgman w= rote: > My intention has not been to fork (though you seemed to believe that, Jua= nma). No, I don't think that was your intention, though I think (and apparently I'm not the only one) that's what you've done. I dislike that, because it seems like a wasted effort. I'd rather see you working on standard Emacs. Seems unlikely. But anyway, my comment wasn't about your fork, just noting that it is possible to serve the needs of the Windows users without forking. Udday seemed to imply otherwise. > The problem is that it is very hard to get them accepted. Thousands of > users using them without trouble does not seem enough. We've rehashed this many times, most recently a few weeks ago. There are many reasons why the patches have not yet been accepted. "Thousand of users using them without trouble" is a good start, but not a conclusive argument per se. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Juanma