Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: CVS repository synchronization for RefTeX

[David Kastrup]

Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:

> * David Kastrup (2007-01-07) writes:
>
>> IIRC, Arch had problems on Windows.
>
> Okay, that's an argument.
>
>> And again: the idea was to have
>> RefTeX available to the AUCTeX developer community without further
>> ado.
>
> Basing the decision on such argumentation would be short-sighted.
> What does it help to use a system where people can jump right in but
> which imposes a lot more overhead on them in the long run?

Such as?  Jumping on the latest fad all the time because of marginal
advantages that look great on paper, but rarely get relevant in
practice, is not really making it easy for people to help.

> We should not miss the opportunity now to make our lives easier just
> because "we've always done it like that."

Could you point out where development on the scale of RefTeX would be
seriously and continuously be hampered by using CVS?

I consider it reasonable to pick a version control system that is
supported out of the box on the Emacs versions (and that includes
Emacs 21.4) for which we want to provide RefTeX support.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum