From xemacs-m  Sun Dec  8 23:52:44 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 XAA17687 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 23:52:43 -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 WAA10835; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 22:52:36 -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 WAA26452; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 22:52:37 -0700
Received: by branagh.lanl.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id WAA07403; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 22:50:37 -0700
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 22:50:37 -0700
Message-Id: <199612090550.WAA07403@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: <m23exgl12y.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
References: <m2afrol569.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
	<199612090439.VAA07222@branagh.lanl.gov>
	<m23exgl12y.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
Reply-To: turner@lanl.gov

Steven L. Baur writes:
 > >>>>> "John" == John Turner <turner@xdiv.lanl.gov> writes:
 > 
 > John> o is faster than 19.14
 > 
 > I consider performance top priority now, but clearly the situation
 > right now is we're no slower than 19.14, and that's certainly not
 > cause for celebration.

True.

 > John> o has tm bundled
 > John> o has AucTex bundled
 > John> o has efs bundled
 > 
 > None of these have been merged with 19.15 yet.

Really?  How about 20?

 > John> o will run on 95/NT
 > 
 > It won't be done by me, but I'll provide as much support as I can
 > if/when someone comes along who wishes to do these ports.

I just threw that in (partly because I knew it would tweak you a
little :).  I know that's not even really on the horizon at this
point.  There are much more important things...

 > No work has been done on the `lite' distribution.

I'd say ditch it then.  Others may disagree.

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

OK, I'll try to organize them.

 > John> How long do you think it will be before 20 can be released?
 > 
 > Martin says the non-Mule code could go out today if it had to.  The
 > mule code will probably be ready sometime 1Q97.  I think if I had
 > enough support and I pushed really hard I could still get a release
 > out by Xmas eve, but December is a notoriously bad time for this sort
 > of thing.  Therefore I'm leaning towards January as a more realistic
 > goal.  20.0 without mule looks like 19.1[45].

[snip some of my msg]

 > In order to get everything in the release I want, yes it will probably
 > take longer to get a 19.15 out than a 20.0 sans Mule.  The 20.0 code
 > base has been actively maintained and improved the last 5 months.  The
 > 19.1[45] code base has hardly been touched.

Hmmm.  Well, in that case, maybe going straight to 20-sans-Mule
(20sM?) is the right course.  Let's see what others have to say...

-John

