> the branch added some non-trivial changes to the compiler, and I think
Wingo wanted to review
those before merging.

That makes sense, thanks. I was hoping we could land the uncontroversial
patches, to make the diff easier to review and simplify any future rebases.
I mentioned the defsubst commits as they seemed reasonable at first glance.

Is this feasible?

> you'd definitely need to do copyright assignment for Guile.  I think
other "establishing
yourself in the community" things apply, informally(??)

I have copyright assignment all in order now :). I don't have any wild
ambitions for sweeping changes, I just thought it might be easier to land
simple docs patches without making work for the core Guile folks.

On 10 October 2016 at 19:35, Christopher Allan Webber <
cwebber@dustycloud.org> wrote:

> Wilfred Hughes writes:
>
> > I've noticed that NEWS in Guile trunk says:
> >
> > ** Complete Emacs-compatible Elisp implementation
> >
> > However, I can see that there are 36 commits on the wip-elisp branch
> > that aren't in master. For example, defsubst support[1] seems only to
> > be on wip-elisp branch. It's still the case the guile-emacs docs[2]
> > recommend using the wip-elisp branch.
> >
> > I can merge master into wip-elisp only one trivial conflict[3]. Can
> > anyone shed any light on the work outstanding here, and the process to
> > land these patches?
>
> Hi!  So, I'm the one who did the most recent rebase of wip-elisp.
>
> Last I heard, Wingo was interested in merging, but looked over the
> branch and saw that it wasn't a trivial merge... the branch added some
> non-trivial changes to the compiler, and I think Wingo wanted to review
> those before merging.  (I'm not really qualified to help, there.)
>
> > Relatedly, what's the process for getting commit access to Guile?
>
> I leave this one to someone else to reply to, but you'd definitely need
> to do copyright assignment for Guile.  I think other "establishing
> yourself in the community" things apply, informally(??)
>