Re: [Docutils-develop] V1.3.0 of rst.el / Emacs mode

[Guenter Milde <milde@us...>]

On 2012-06-18, Stefan Merten wrote:

> 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?

It is OK to keep it this way and you gave valid reasons.
I just wanted to avoid double efforts.

> 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.

Fine. Thanks for your work,

Günter

[Docutils-develop] V1.3.0 of rst.el / Emacs mode

[Stefan Merten <smerten@oe...>]

Hi!

I just committed V1.3.0 of rst.el.

This is a major merge with Emacs source tree. Docutils SVN version and
Emacs trunk are kept in sync from now on. New version is supposed to
appear in Emacs 24.2.

User visible changes:

* Switch meaning of keybindings ``C-M-a`` and ``C-M-e``

  They were wrong in the first place :-( . Sorry for changing bindings
  again.

* Added faces `rst-transition` and `rst-adornment`

  New faces are used instead of directly using
  `font-lock-keyword-face`.

* Improved customization of `rst-adornment-faces-alist`

  Hopefully this will not break existing customization.

* Character syntax adopted to match plain text again

Other code improvements suggested by Emacs developers:

* Replaced use of `defun`\s from `cl.el` by own definitions

* Improved lots and lots of comments and documentation strings
  including spelling fixes

* Fixed version stuff

* Improved some functions

* Byte-compiling emits no warnings and works

* Added tests

Other improvements:

* Default for customizing `rst-adornment-faces-alist` is now safe

  Thanks to Samuel Bronson for the patch.

Re: [Docutils-develop] V1.3.0 of rst.el / Emacs mode

[Guenter Milde <milde@us...>]

On 2012-06-16, Stefan Merten wrote:

> I just committed V1.3.0 of rst.el.

Thanks for your work.

> This is a major merge with Emacs source tree. Docutils SVN version and
> Emacs trunk are kept in sync from now on. New version is supposed to
> appear in Emacs 24.2.

I wonder, if we need to ship the Emacs rst mode with the Docutils package
if is also in emacs trunk. Are there cases where users might have Emacs
without the rst mode? Would these users typically get the mode from Docutils
or from Emacs? Would you want to keep the bugtracker open for emacs support
related bugs - is there an alternative at the emacs site?

Günter

Re: [Docutils-develop] V1.3.0 of rst.el / Emacs mode

[Stefan Merten <smerten@oe...>]

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

Re: [Docutils-develop] V1.3.0 of rst.el / Emacs mode

[Guenter Milde <milde@us...>]

On 2012-06-18, Stefan Merten wrote:

> 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?

It is OK to keep it this way and you gave valid reasons.
I just wanted to avoid double efforts.

> 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.

Fine. Thanks for your work,

Günter

Re: [Docutils-develop] V1.3.0 of rst.el / Emacs mode

[Ben Finney <ben+python@be...>]

Stefan Merten <smerten@...> writes:

> 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.

Just as a data point, I find the Emacs bug tracker (which runs the
excellent Debbugs) significantly better to use than the Sourceforge bug
tracker. I know I'm not alone in that.

There may be many people who prefer the Sourceforge bug tracker, but
your characterisation doesn't match my experience nor that of many
technical people I know; so I thought you should hear this view.

I'm not saying you need to change this because of my say so, but you
have declared a desire for feedback :-)

> 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.

Thank you for seeking and attending to user feedback.

-- 
 \       “We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the |
  `\       sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his |
_o__)     wife is beautiful and his children smart.” —Henry L. Mencken |
Ben Finney