Re: Documentation for "Clone Buffers" (corrected version)

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@elta.co.il>]

> From: Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org>
> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 07:18:08 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@elta.co.il> writes:
> > Yes we can: we could make a separate manual that isn't printed as part
> > of the Emacs manual.  Then users can print it on their own.
> >
> > We already do that for several major Emacs features.
> 
> Making a separate manual is reasonable only for a big Emacs package
> like Ediff, Eshell, Gnus, or other 30 packages currently having a
> separate Info manual.  However, placing smaller Emacs features into
> a separate manual is very inconvenient for users, because when they
> are trying for find a needed Emacs feature by searching the Emacs
> manual or by looking its index they might miss them.

We could add a feature that would look in those other manuals as
well.  In fact, it would be a good idea even now, as packages like
Eshell and Gnus are parts of Emacs, so there's no need to force the
user to know how we subdivide the Emacs docs.

We already do something similar for "C-h F", for example.

> Currently,
> there is only one Info manual that don't correspond to a separate
> Emacs package: it is Autotype.  It describes some small Emacs features,
> and even most of its references lead to the Emacs manual, so it really
> looks like a part of the Emacs manual.  I think Autotype should be
> moved to the Emacs manual.

That was already discussed a few years ago, and Richard asked not to
include it in the manual, for the same reasons he explained in this
thread the other day: the sheer volume of the printed manual and its
price.

> BTW, is there a reason for not including references to SES and SMTP
> manuals into the `emacs/info/dir' file?

A simple omission; these manuals are relatively new additions.  (It is
IMHO the job of the person who adds a new manual to update info/dir.)

Feel free to add them.