From owner-cvs-other  Tue Sep 13 10:07:35 1994
Return-Path: cvs-other-owner
Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id KAA28177 for cvs-other-outgoing; Tue, 13 Sep 1994 10:07:35 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA28167; Tue, 13 Sep 1994 10:07:17 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.cdrom.com: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol
To: csgr@omega.ru.ac.za
cc: gclarkii@freefall.cdrom.com (Gary Clark II), ache@freefall.cdrom.com,
        adam@freefall.cdrom.com, alm@freefall.cdrom.com,
        ats@freefall.cdrom.com, bde@freefall.cdrom.com,
        csgr@freefall.cdrom.com, cvs-other@freefall.cdrom.com,
        davidg@freefall.cdrom.com, dfr@freefall.cdrom.com,
        dyson@freefall.cdrom.com, gpalmer@freefall.cdrom.com,
        guido@freefall.cdrom.com, hsu@freefall.cdrom.com,
        joerg@freefall.cdrom.com, julian@freefall.cdrom.com,
        jvh@freefall.cdrom.com, karl@freefall.cdrom.com,
        martin@freefall.cdrom.com, nate@freefall.cdrom.com,
        paul@freefall.cdrom.com, phk@freefall.cdrom.com,
        proven@freefall.cdrom.com, pst@freefall.cdrom.com,
        rgrimes@freefall.cdrom.com, rich@freefall.cdrom.com,
        se@freefall.cdrom.com, sean@freefall.cdrom.com, sef@freefall.cdrom.com,
        smace@freefall.cdrom.com, sos@freefall.cdrom.com,
        torstenb@freefall.cdrom.com, wollman@freefall.cdrom.com
Subject: Re: cvs commit: gnu/usr.bin/texinfo - Imported sources 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 13 Sep 94 18:17:27 +0200."
             <199409131617.SAA08000@braae> 
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 10:07:12 -0700
Message-ID: <28166.779476032@freefall.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com>
Sender: cvs-other-owner@freefall.cdrom.com
Precedence: bulk

> Have I mentioned yet what I think of texinfo?

You like it, right?  I seem to recall something from you saying
that you were totally and utterly enamoured of it, and often
dreamt in texinfo macro.

> Was there any discussion about bringing this in?  If there was, I
> certainly was not included.

There was, actually.  We had this big long inconclusive debate that
raged for 2 weeks or more where we were trying to hash out our new
doc format, and everything from SGML to HTML to TeX to troff was
suggested, usually with great vigor, and then absolutely nothing happened.

When the bmaking of texinfo came up again, I said "go for it - we've
been back and forth over that bridge multiple times and nobody can
agree for spit and the majority of us don't even KNOW SGML so even if
it's fantastically superior it won't matter because none of us will
actually WRITE ANY DOC in it. Most of us know texinfo, and it can be
converted to HTML or troff as necessary.  Go for it.  There's
established precedent in Garrett's stuff, even."

Given all the fruitless past debate, I don't think this was an
unreasonable call to make.

					Jordan