Re: EmacsW32 invocation options

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 5/4/07, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> (He might be better off choosing a less radical word than
> ``destructive'', but then he's not a native English speaker, so we all
> might cut him some slack.)

I should've said "not productive", but I was mimicking the use of
"destructive" in one of Lennart's answers to you.

> In this case, Lennart's attitude to put into his distribution every
> patch he finds useful, but cannot convince the Emacs developers to
> accept, is IMO not the best use of that freedom.  It is confusing to
> users who expect Emacs to behave as documented and to do that
> consistently on all platforms.  And it's an attitude that smells of
> schism and forking, which many of us will not approve, because it
> diminishes the already small group of active developers by spreading
> their insufficient resources between several competing projects.

You've nicely summarized the main points of the discussion. Thanks.

            Juanma