Re: The MH-E repository

[Bill Wohler]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:

> - RMS doesn't automatically give write access to people who signed papers.

Not having write access would be a show-stopper. Question to MH-E
developers: which of you know that you don't have write access, or
aren't sure?

> - Maybe you could automate the syncing some more and do it more frequently.
> 
> - Take a look at the way Gnus's code is synced.  The use of Arch for that is
>   key.

Tell me more. Is there a document like
http://mh-e.sourceforge.net/doc/devguide.html that explains the process?
I'm not familiar with Arch. Are you talking about
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-arch/?

How often do you sync? Do you clone the CVS check-ins including log
messages? It looks like the answer is yes and no. Looking at the Emacs
log, it appears that many of the messages are "Merge from..." although I
see some similarity with the log messages in the Gnus CVS repository.

I'm currently syncing at MH-E releases (about 4/year) with Emacs cvs
logs like "Upgraded to MH-E version 7.84. See etc/MH-E-NEWS and
lisp/mh-e/ChangeLog for details." My MH-E CVS logs are very similar to
the Gnus CVS logs (as I look at the Gnus CVS log).

Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> wrote:

> How many developers are involved?
> 
> Have they signed papers for MH-E only, or general past/future changes
> for emacs as a whole?

Mark answered this nicely.

> > contrib, debian, htdocs, xemacs modules. These would remain on
> > SourceForge.
> 
> Why?

I think you might not understand what I'm talking about. I'm not talking
about moving the SourceForge MH-E project to Savannah, I'm merely
talking about not having two separate CVS repositories for the lisp/mh-e
directory.

Miles Bader <address@hidden> wrote:

> What _advantage_ is there to having [MH-E maintenance files] be included?

Less up-front effort modifying scripts with a different layout. There
wouldn't be any advantage to the Emacs project as a whole, so I'm
expecting that I will be keeping them external from emacs/lisp/mh-e.

> BTW, I personally would prefer it if the non-lisp files would go in
> "proper" locations, eg. image files in etc/images, etc.  I think Gnus
> is a very good model to follow on this...

I agree. The MH-E package shares images with the mail and toolbar
packages. If you were developing MH-E with a non-CVS Emacs, then you
would have to be careful about putting lisp/mail at the end of your
load-path so you don't get the wrong version of the mail elisp files.

If I were to make the requisite changes in MH-E, would someone be
willing to make the changes to these other packages?

-- 
Bill Wohler <address@hidden>  http://www.newt.com/wohler/  GnuPG ID:610BD9AD
Maintainer of comp.mail.mh FAQ and MH-E. Vote Libertarian!
If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane.