Re: CPerl-mode bug [Re: Relation with package authors (CPerl-mode follow-ups)]

[Ilya Zakharevich]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 04:17:59PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> 2005/6/30, Ilya Zakharevich <address@hidden>:
> > > > I suspect that in this case "a proper merge" will consist of removing
> > > > 95% of changes made w.r.t. the reference (my) implementation.
> > >
> > > Perhaps so, but somebody has to make that judgement...
> > 
> > Sure.  Do you know somebody more quialified than me?
> 
> Well if you've gone though the changes in the Emacs CVS and determined
> that they're all safely discarded, then sure, of course; but your
> previous posts to the thread made it sound as if you hadn't looked at
> the details.

Not now.  But I did during the previous iteration - when I released
v5.0 (it was not 95% that time; but *for non-configuration type edits*
it might have been about 100%).  And what I see are the bug reports
which are solved by switching from FSF's version.

Trying to maintain two separate versions was a bold experiment; I
supported it for a long time.  However, it looks like this experiment
failed miserably - most of FSF edits are backwards in usability.

*Something* must be done in this situation.  [I realize that it is a
potentially painful topic; it does not help that a lot of people find
my writing style offending.  My apologies (including "in advance"); it
is not intendend.]

Yours,
Ilya