Re: CEDET Merge

[Eric Ludlam]

On 01/18/2017 04:57 PM, David Engster wrote:
> My worry is indeed feature creep. The CEDET merge fell behind because I
> couldn't keep up with the changes in Emacs, most notably the switch to
> git and the extensive changes in EIEIO. The code base is very large and
> complicated, so I'm against adding more code to Emacs core. Instead, we
> should try to make it more modular and put support for certain languages
> and project types into separate ELPA projects. This would also make it
> easier to share maintainership of CEDET.

I agree with David.  Making it easy to create and maintain different 
extensions independent of CEDET core will be a big win.

Eric