Re: Platform independent graphical display for Emacs

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 25.12.2021 15:06, Po Lu wrote:
> Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> writes:
>
> > And I think the BeOS port had been accepted under the same conditions
> > recently.
>
> I don't plan to abandon it,

It's still bus factor of 1.

> > We should be able to drop unmaintained ports. Even if we're reluctant,
> > in general, to remove features that someone is using. After all, the
> > history of changes is saved, so as soon as a volunteer arrives to
> > resurrect it, they can start with 'git revert' and continue.
>
> IMO, we should just let them be.  If someone notices once they get
> broken, and is interested in fixing them, he will probably do that.
>
> There's also the chance that an unmaintained port will simply continue
> to work.
>
> I think that's the situation with the MS-DOS port as well.

That's just the argument of when we call a port "unmaintained". E.g., I 
would say a port is unmaintained when there are known usability-breaking 
bugs. Or you can call it that when it stops compiling (for a certain 
period of time).

But there *is* value in dropping unused ports: the trimming of the 
#ifdefs forest, as well as less work for regular contributors to keep 
code compiling under various conditions.