Re: [emacs-wiki-discuss] Re: muse, emacs-wiki (planner even)

[TC]

Again, I stress that it wasn't rhetorical.  I mean, the principle sounds 
fine - if emacs-wiki is destined to decline, and muse to take over, then 
 there's a clear argument for "freeze and sell" in emacs-wiki and get 
moving with a concerted effort on muse.

BUT:

Why?  Why is emacs-wiki destined to decline? Folk seem to love it. 
Personally, *I* like the multi-format publishing capability of muse, but 
no one else seems to be jumping up and down asking for it.

At the risk of placing the great man on too high a pedestal, is the 
reason there's any kind of push towards muse not simply because John Of 
The Wiegley says it should be so?  (If he even does.)

Once again, the words "shush. go away small boy!" work marvels with 
people like me :-)

t

Chris Parsons wrote:
> On the 2nd of March 2005 at 14:44, TC <tc#emailetc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > c. Sacha et al, why don't you guys just stop emacs-wiki/planner 
> > development forthwith and everyone just switch to the muse branch? 
> > (That's really not a rhetorical question.) We'd take a hit in the short 
> > term, but pretty soon muse would be the bee's knees.
>
>
> I'd second this... and would be willing to help with the coding.
>
> Chris
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> emacs-wiki-discuss mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-wiki-discuss