On Jul 13, 2012, at 10:12 PM, Paul Michael Reilly wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:54 PM, John Wiegley <johnw@newa...> wrote:
> >>>>> Jan Djärv <jan.h.d@swip...> writes:
> > This might be true in some sense, but it is not practical. GNUStep does not
> > get much attention in Emacs, but it is more likely that a developer that has
> > looked at the OSX code takes a stab at it if they are similar and use the
> > same API:s. If we bring in the Mac port, I think we must drop GNUStep due
> > to lack of developer time.
> Isn't the lack of developer time being spent on GNUstep a fact that there
> aren't many developers interested in maintaining it?
> By not splitting these two, you are losing out on the consistent efforts of
> Yamamoto Mitsuharu, who has done a superlative job at providing an excellent
> experience for Mac users. If we use his code, we also gain him as an active
> developer for a very active platform. By sticking with GNUstep, however much
> the FSF may want that, we are restricting ourselves to a developer pool
> interested in GNUstep -- which is not going to include many people from the
> Mac development camp.
> If there were another alternative to the ns tree that would produce an OS X Emacs binary, I would build it in a heartbeat and then choose between the two which one I will put time into supporting. Seems crazy to me not to give Yamamoto's tree a chance to grow. Is there a git-able source tree somewhere or is it strictly a patch on top of the ns tree?