Re: [PATCH 1/5] Drop support for 'configure.in' as the Autoconf input file

[Peter Rosin]

Hi Stefano,

Since you don't seem impressed by my arguments for keeping the 
support for configure.in, I will just stop wasting time and
drop this discussion. I can't help myself though, and find
myself repeating my arguments one last time...

- I don't want to convert the GGI project from CVS, I don't
have the time nor the energy to verify the conversion and
fixup the inevitable hickups, touch up the documentation and
web site, set up commit hooks and all the other stuff that
goes with it. (That doesn't mean that I don't want to see it
done, I just don't fancy doing it).

- I don't want to make it even harder to search the CVS
history with a silly rename of a bunch of files that contain
much information about the history of the project.

If you still want to remove support for configure.in, as you
seem keen to do, then do it. But if so, thanks in advance for
the pebble in my shoe. Very comfy.

That's it, over and out on this subject.


[re SGI support]

>> What do you gain by the zap?
>>
> Not shipping broken code, and not having to debug/fix it for the
> benefit of a vanishingly-small user base.

I agree, the zap is ok. But the rationale in NEWS comes out
all wrong in its current incomplete state.

Cheers,
Peter