From: Stefan M. <sm...@oe...> - 2012-06-18 18:46:08
|
Hi Günter and all! 2 days ago Guenter Milde wrote: > I wonder, if we need to ship the Emacs rst mode with the Docutils package > if is also in emacs trunk. I consider the version of rst.el in the Docutils SVN the main version and the Docutils SVN the main distribution channel. I'd like to keep it this way. Do you see any problems with this approach? > Are there cases where users might have Emacs > without the rst mode? So far the version of rst.el maintained in Emacs releases was really, really outdated. Emacs 24.1 has just been released and the next possibility to release an up-to-date version of rst.el in Emacs is 24.2 which might be somewhen in 2013. Since the new version is so much better it would be a pity if it is not available. > Would these users typically get the mode from Docutils > or from Emacs? I think both for the average used. But there is one big difference. Emacs is a huge project and reStructuredText mode is only a tiny part of it. Docutils, however, is much smaller and has an active user community. The feedback I get from here is different from the feedback from the Emacs community - who is basically not interested in reStructuredText but in the Lisp code. There is also a chance that a reStructuredText user is on docutils-users and receives announcements of new releases while there is no such facility for Emacs. To me it's just logical that they just update their working directory from Docutils SVN instead of dealing with the huge Emacs repository. > Would you want to keep the bugtracker open for emacs support > related bugs - is there an alternative at the emacs site? Of course Emacs has a bugtracker. But it is by far less comfortable for users than the SourceForge based bugtracker. So, yes, I'd like to keep it as is. I value the contributions to rst.el coming from the Emacs community. But I *need* the contributions made by the Docutils community. So I really want to keep things as they are. Grüße Stefan |