> the branch added some non-trivial changes to the compiler, and I think Wingo wanted to review those before merging.
That makes sense, thanks. I was hoping we could land the uncontroversial patches, to make the diff easier to review and simplify any future rebases. I mentioned the defsubst commits as they seemed reasonable at first glance. Is this feasible? > you'd definitely need to do copyright assignment for Guile. I think other "establishing yourself in the community" things apply, informally(??) I have copyright assignment all in order now :). I don't have any wild ambitions for sweeping changes, I just thought it might be easier to land simple docs patches without making work for the core Guile folks. On 10 October 2016 at 19:35, Christopher Allan Webber < cweb...@dustycloud.org> wrote: > Wilfred Hughes writes: > > > I've noticed that NEWS in Guile trunk says: > > > > ** Complete Emacs-compatible Elisp implementation > > > > However, I can see that there are 36 commits on the wip-elisp branch > > that aren't in master. For example, defsubst support[1] seems only to > > be on wip-elisp branch. It's still the case the guile-emacs docs[2] > > recommend using the wip-elisp branch. > > > > I can merge master into wip-elisp only one trivial conflict[3]. Can > > anyone shed any light on the work outstanding here, and the process to > > land these patches? > > Hi! So, I'm the one who did the most recent rebase of wip-elisp. > > Last I heard, Wingo was interested in merging, but looked over the > branch and saw that it wasn't a trivial merge... the branch added some > non-trivial changes to the compiler, and I think Wingo wanted to review > those before merging. (I'm not really qualified to help, there.) > > > Relatedly, what's the process for getting commit access to Guile? > > I leave this one to someone else to reply to, but you'd definitely need > to do copyright assignment for Guile. I think other "establishing > yourself in the community" things apply, informally(??) >
