Moving on

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Jan writes:

 > having recently switched to a Mac, I immediately started looking
 > for a usable emacs. That turned out to be Emacs.app
 > (http://emacs-app.sourceforge.net/).

If you want full Mac integration, that's definitely a better choice
than XEmacs as it stands.  I've tried to persuade jwz that that's a
good reason for him to start contributing again, but he claims he's
got better things to do. :-)  On the other hand, according to Andrew
Choi, it's much easier to get these things done in XEmacs, so you
(and I!) might be surprised how fast we get some kind of Aqua port.

 > So, while I'm not entirely happy with political aspects of the
 > move, I made the switch.

I'm sorry you feel that way.  Our philosophy is that you should use
the software that's best for you; you shouldn't worry about the
politics.  This time it works against us -- we'll miss you! -- but
that's the way it should be.

 > This means that I won't be using XEmacs anymore and I
 > won't be maintaining the escreen package anymore, either (not that I
 > really had to do any maintaining at all). It also means I won't be
 > developing vx-mode anymore,

Noted.

 > I have one other observation to make before I leave the list. The
 > amount of energy that has been put into the AUCTeX packaging
 > debates over the years would easily have sufficed to find a
 > workable solution and maintain it.

*chuckle* Ah, but that was never about finding a solution to the
AUCTeX package as such.  Our version is good enough for me and I
suspect for most casual TeX users.  If it's not good enough for
somebody else, they can go get the AUCTeX project's tarball or build
from source.  There never was a real problem *here* ... although some
members of the AUCTeX project obviously perceive one.

Not to mention that RSN we should have a nearly up-to-date version in
our CVS, done by people who care about both XEmacs and AUCTeX -- which
is the way it should be.

Thanks for your note, and feel free to drop by any time!