[slime-devel] Re: SLIME48: a Swank back end in Scheme48

[Helmut Eller]

* Taylor Campbell [2005-09-29 05:39+0200] writes:

> I was almost convinced earlier today not to fork SLIME, as everyone
> who responded to my poll (about five or six people) was opposed to it,
> and I didn't want the maintenance burden of a SLIME fork; I was about
> to send mail to this regard a few minutes ago, until I received the
> ChangeLog diff showing numerous changes to the SLIME48 code that were
> made without my knowledge, that I was not sent or even contacted about
> before they were committed, that were inconsiderate of Scheme &
> Scheme48's style & design, that were committed even before I got CVS
> access, and that were made without regard to the separate Darcs
> repository that I was maintaining.  I was under the impression, too,
> that the general attitude was that burden of SLIME48's maintenance
> should *not* be placed on the existing SLIME maintainers.

First, I asked the cl.net guys to give you permissions a week ago.
Maybe you should have said a word to me that you still haven't
received your password.

Second, if you don't like my changes, feel free to fix them.

> I am sorry to those who would have preferred no fork, and I apologize
> for the bother taken to put SLIME48 in SLIME's CVS, but under the
> circumstances and in consideration of the possible advantages that
> more freedom from the current SLIME development might allow, I'd
> rather fork SLIME.

Well, it's your decision.