On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Maciej Katafiasz <[email protected]> wrote: ...
I'd like to ask everyone interested in vi-in-emacs: why not go [the vimp] way instead of trying to fix viper? If I stopped slacking off, converted my morning commuting hours to hacking on vimp instead of watching anime, made a proper, public repo (another big problem with vimpulse), would anyone be interested?
Once it meets my needs better than Viper plus Vimpulse, then I will switch. Otherwise, I will probably not switch. Sorry :) By the way, I have no private Vimpulse repo. When I modify my local copy of Vimpulse, I upload my changes to the wiki right away. But I haven't touched my local copy of Vimpulse for over a year now; also, there are many unread Vimpulse-related emails which were sent only to me in my inbox. This includes patches. I haven't been reading them or acting on them. I think I have been ignoring them because I am no longer very interested in putting in the effort to maintain Vimpulse. That is why I would like a new maintainer to step up.
I seriously want to switch to the vi(m) editing model, and I seriously don't want to leave emacs, and I seriously think viper is too buggy to be useful for anything.
Back when I used only Viper, I don't remember finding it buggy at all. So I believe that Vimpulse is buggy, but Viper is not. I haven't investigated though, and I could be wrong. ...
[1] Tentatively called "vimp", although "vimpersonator" is a good candidate as well.
I prefer the name "vimpersonator". The name "vimp" sounds too much like "pimp", which is bad. -- Jason Spiro: software/web developer, packager, trainer, IT consultant. I support Linux, UNIX, Windows, and more. Contact me to discuss your needs. +1 (416) 992-3445 / www.jspiro.com