ack.texi

ack.texi

[Glenn Morris]

What is the policy on things in ack.texi that are no longer part of
Emacs? Maybe collect them all in a separate section?

Re: ack.texi

[Glenn Morris]

Come to think of, is ack.texi really necessary, given that etc/AUTHORS
exists? AFAICS, the former is just a less complete, harder to update
version of the latter.

Re: ack.texi

[Glenn Morris]

Glenn Morris wrote:

> Come to think of, is ack.texi really necessary, given that etc/AUTHORS
> exists? AFAICS, the former is just a less complete, harder to update
> version of the latter.

Rambling away to myself, I suppose ack.texi is a bit more readable
than AUTHORS.

Re: ack.texi

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>
> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:17:20 -0500
> 
> 
> Come to think of, is ack.texi really necessary, given that etc/AUTHORS
> exists?

Please don't forget that someone who reads a printed copy of the Emacs
manual does not necessarily have etc/AUTHORS handy.

Re: ack.texi

[Glenn Morris]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> Please don't forget that someone who reads a printed copy of the Emacs
> manual does not necessarily have etc/AUTHORS handy.

In other words, they might not have a copy of Emacs handy.
In which case there's a bunch of much more useful information they
also don't have to hand.

Re: ack.texi

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:27:31 -0500
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > Please don't forget that someone who reads a printed copy of the Emacs
> > manual does not necessarily have etc/AUTHORS handy.
> 
> In other words, they might not have a copy of Emacs handy.

Right.

> In which case there's a bunch of much more useful information they
> also don't have to hand.

That's true, although I'm not sure what information you refer to.
However, acknowledging contribution is a widely accepted act of
courtesy on the part of any significant human endeavor, and in a
project driven by volunteers it is even more important and
appropriate, IMO, even if it doesn't have much instrumental value.

Re: ack.texi

[Richard M Stallman]

ack.texi is used in the on-line version of the Emacs manual.  The
printed version has a shorter replacement which lists only the names.
It is in emacs.texi.

The suggestion is that the on-line version refer to AUTHORS instead
of using ack.texi.  I am not sure what is better
but the suggestion is just a change in detail.

Re: ack.texi

[Richard M Stallman]

    What is the policy on things in ack.texi that are no longer part of
    Emacs? Maybe collect them all in a separate section?

They can be deleted.