Re: CVS is the `released version'

[Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>]

>>>>> "rms" == Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

rms> It seems that part of your motivation for wanting a package system is
rms> to move Emacs development in a direction that weakens the FSF's
rms> ability to develop Emacs as an FSF-copyrighted package.
rms> This confirms my concern about the downside.

I was a bit surprised, and I suppose a little hurt, to read this.
Please ask about my motives rather than try to infer what they might
be.

I don't want to weaken the FSF's ability to develop emacs as an
FSF-copyright package.  I think that would be a bad idea.

My real motivation is that I got tired of jumping through hoops to
download and try out Emacs extensions.  I thought it would be fun and
useful to try to solve this problem in a user-friendly way.

In my view package.el does not make Emacs worse in any way.  To the
extent that it enables unassigned work, it is simply reflecting the
actually existing state of affairs -- there are many Emacs packages
which, for whatever reason, are not FSF-assigned and that probably
will never be.

There's another way to address this 3rd party elisp problem: you could
do outreach to the authors and ask them to contribute to Emacs.  ELL
and the Emacs Wiki have a long list of potential contributors.

Tom