Re: please consider emacs-unicode for pervasive changes

[Ken Raeburn]

"Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/address@hidden> writes:
> I think Dave is right in trying to make people aware of the problem
> and that the merging should not be blindly always imposed on the same
> side.  There should be enough cooperation that the merge is done by
> the people who can do it most easily (and thus reliably) and that
> depends on the actual change.

Agreed.

> In the case of a rename (or other changes like the ones done for Guile),
> the one making the change is better prepared to apply it to other branches
> because understanding the code that's changed is not really
> necessary.

True, but I'm concerned about stepping on toes in "their" development
branch.  If the people "in charge of" the unicode branch say yes, they
want all these changes, okay, I can do it.

But they haven't said that.  Dave asked for the unicode branch to be
considered for pervasive changes, but said, "I don't know if handa
would like to be consulted beforehand".  I haven't seen any email from
handa on this, so I won't take this as a go-ahead yet, either in
general or for the specific changes I've made recently.  I sent both
of them email a couple weeks ago showing the string-macro changes as
they would apply to the unicode branch (as it was at that time),
asking if they wanted them applied, but I'm still waiting to hear
back.

> Maybe Ken should base its work on the emacs-unicode branch so it
> doesn't need to worry about another branch.

Only on the unicode branch, which will complicate the merging process
for whoever does it, especially since most of the automated changes
are done for now, or on both?

I'd gotten the impression from email a while ago that it wasn't ready
for daily use, but maybe that's changed.  I don't want to be
developing solely on a branch I can't effectively test.

Ken