From xemacs-m  Sun Dec  8 22:41:35 1996
Received: from mailhost.lanl.gov (mailhost.lanl.gov [128.165.3.12]) by xemacs.cs.uiuc.edu (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id WAA17480 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 22:41:35 -0600 (CST)
Received: from xdiv.lanl.gov (xdiv.lanl.gov [128.165.116.106]) by mailhost.lanl.gov (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id VAA08100; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 21:41:11 -0700 (MST)
Received: from branagh.lanl.gov (branagh.lanl.gov [128.165.16.72]) by xdiv.lanl.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA25696; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 21:41:13 -0700
Received: by branagh.lanl.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id VAA07222; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 21:39:13 -0700
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 21:39:13 -0700
Message-Id: <199612090439.VAA07222@branagh.lanl.gov>
From: John Turner <turner@xdiv.lanl.gov>
To: steve@miranova.com
Cc: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: The future of XEmacs
In-Reply-To: <m2afrol569.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
References: <m2afrol569.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
Reply-To: turner@lanl.gov

Steven L. Baur writes:

[pros and cons of ditching 19.15 and concentrating on 20 only]

 > * I've used 19.15-b3 heavily every day for the last 3 months, and have
 >   a `warm, fuzzy' feeling about it.  For my usage (Gnus for email &
 >   news, html/perl CGI editing) it is extremely stable.

I don't mean to be an ass, but if it's been that good for 3 months,
why hasn't it been made available to the rest of us?

 > All in all, I'm leaning very heavily towards ditching 19.15, so if
 > there are any objections, speak now or flame me in comp.emacs.xemacs
 > for the next 3 years ;-).

I guess I'd really rather see a concerted effort to go ahead and get
19.15 out the door ASAP.  I'll be interested to see what others
think.

Just off the top of my head, it seems that people *really* want (in
decreasing order) an XEmacs that:

o fixes most of the 19.14 bugs (esp. ones related to configure and
  Options) 
o is faster than 19.14
o has tm bundled
o has AucTex bundled
o has efs bundled
o will run on 95/NT

If 19.15 could meet even some of these (I know the last one is "right
out", as the Brits would say), then it seems to me that it would be
best to get it out. 

Ditch the "lite" distribution idea if need be, even though I think it
was promised for 19.15 (unless of course it's already done).  Are
there other things that could be ditched?

I've got my own list of "outstanding issues" for 19.15, but I've been
holding off sending anything to the list because I just didn't know
what was going on.  I imagine others have similar lists.

How long do you think it will be before 20 can be released?  I fear
that a lot of momentum would be lost if 19.15 is ditched and then it
takes a long time to get 20 released.  If 19.15 can get out the door,
it will ease some of the pressure on getting 20 out.

However, this is a very user-centric view.  If I'm totally wrong about
the timescales, i.e. if 19.15 is ditched then 20 can be out only a few
weeks after 19.15 would have been, then that's a different matter.  Or
if getting 19.15 out is going to be harder than I think.

-- 
John A. Turner         |"Music is the cup which holds the wine of silence;
Los Alamos Natl. Lab.  |  sound is that cup, but empty;
e-mail: turner@lanl.gov|    noise is that cup, but broken."
                       |                        - Robert Fripp

