Re: CVS repository synchronization for RefTeX

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Ralf Angeli <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden
> Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:08:13 +0100
> 
> * Eli Zaretskii (2006-12-30) writes:
> 
> >> From: Ralf Angeli <address@hidden>
> >> 
> >> There will be standalone releases of RefTeX.
> >
> > Why?
> 
> Because I don't want to couple the Emacs and RefTeX release cycles.

But you might need to do that anyway, since some Emacs features used
by RefTeX will require a newer Emacs.

Besides, why not couple them?  What's the problem?

> > What problems is this going to solve that cannot be solved by
> > telling people to fetch files from the Emacs CVS?
> 
> I already answered part of that question in my last mail.

What, the need to get several files from different directories?
That's a non-issue, since a problem that urges a user to fetch a newer
file is normally solved in a single directory, if not a single file.
There's no need to fetch the docs if the problem is in Lisp.

> Apart from
> that there are many users who are not really acquainted with CVS
> (okay, there's the web interface) and with "installing" and
> byte-compiling single files.  And if those users manage to do that
> (probably by handholding them through the process) they'll get some
> hodgepodge of files from releases and CVS.  And providing support for
> such hodgepodge installations will be quite a nightmare.  I'd really,
> _really_ like to avoid such a mess.

This whole mess (and then some) will be completely avoided if you
decide to stick with Emacs releases.  If you don't, releasing interim
versions will get you at least some of the trouble, since users will
be installing those versions in several Emacs versions, and you will
have problem knowing which ones (as many people nowadays use the CVS
code).

I really, _really_ urge you to reconsider.