sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Ismael Luceno <ismael AT initng.org>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] emacs-lisp section
- Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 00:27:01 -0200
El Wed, 8 Dec 2010 10:21:26 +0900
flux <flux AT sourcemage.org> escribió:
> Did you test it all first? It's a good idea to make sure the branch is
> as close to perfect as possible for a merge.
Done :).
> Also, if you're going to have a section for emacs-lisp, why not put
> all the emacs-lisp spells in there, instead of only the ones that need
> special handling? I don't know what "the rest of the spells" refers
> to.
If git-grep tells me the truth: auctex, erc, epo, psgml, records,
emacs-w3m, w3, bbdb, mailcrypt and gnus.
Those packages work fine as they are... I see no reason to move them
(besides organizational consistency).
The packages I've moved *are broken*, like most other emacs packages
out there in the inet, that's why they need a special section...
Do you really think it's a good idea to move everything else there?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-
[SM-Discuss] emacs-lisp section,
Ismael Luceno, 12/06/2010
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] emacs-lisp section,
Ismael Luceno, 12/07/2010
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] emacs-lisp section,
flux, 12/07/2010
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] emacs-lisp section,
Ismael Luceno, 12/07/2010
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] emacs-lisp section,
flux, 12/08/2010
- Re: [SM-Discuss] emacs-lisp section, Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik, 12/08/2010
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] emacs-lisp section,
flux, 12/08/2010
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] emacs-lisp section,
Ismael Luceno, 12/07/2010
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] emacs-lisp section,
flux, 12/07/2010
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] emacs-lisp section,
Ismael Luceno, 12/07/2010
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.