Re: Platform independent graphical display for Emacs

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: stefankangas@gmail.com, luangruo@yahoo.com, drew.adams@oracle.com,
>  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
> Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2021 14:59:34 +0200
> 
> > Because we did have someone who volunteered, and because nothing would
> > be lost on platforms of interest to us if the BeOS port bitrots.
> 
> Which would be also true when someone initially proposes the new "single 
> toolkit" port for inclusion.

No, it won't.  The "single" part makes the crucial difference.

> > Once again, a single toolkit on which all the platforms depend cannot
> > be dropped.  So it's a huge difference from the BeOS port.
> 
> Once again: we would only get to that point after the "single toolkit" 
> port is functional, accepted by the majority of us, and probably 
> "adopted" by a few regular contributors as their area of interest.
> 
> Only then we could realistically vote to drop all other ports.

You are responding to what I wrote on the assumption that this was
being proposed up front.

> I'm sure a contributor who would propose such new port would understand 
> all of this.

That wasn't my understanding.

> > That's generally not a practical possibility, because the code changes
> > very rapidly, and what you revert won't even compile in most cases.
> 
> Yes and no: I'm sure having the previous code available will be a lot of 
> help. As opposed to rewriting the same port from scratch.

Much more is needed than just the code which at some point did work.