Steffen, I took a shot at reviewing this last week. Turned out I don't have enough context of the groff code base to be able to do a useful review. I am currently familiarizing myself with the parts of code to which this review is pertinent. However, given my current abilities and the size of the patch, I am afraid this will take time.
- Vaibhaw On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso <sdao...@yandex.com> wrote: > Hallo Werner, > > Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> wrote: > |I don't have time to review this. I suggest that you open an > |bugtracker issue and post a cleaned-up mbox file for further > |inspection. > > You don't need to review but could just commit it, it is ok by > itself. I.e., i would commit it. > > |It's really time that we find a new groff maintainer... > > I'm not the right person to be the "technical leader" of GNU troff > since i don't know enough, but a Public Domain based commit > ticket for such general technical cleanups and, as time goes by, > probably more would be doable. E.g., having a stable and fully > UTF-8 aware troff all through the way would be a fantastic > improvement, but for one i'm sure you have had reasons to go the > preconv(1) and \[u ] way and then i want to actually understand > Unicode by creating a text library which does support it. The > standard(s) doesn't do so, and will fail to do so for a long time. > And anyway i am definitely not capable to replace you in such > a way that you could disappear from the scene, like your > predecessor did, like you said. E.g., i've already looked into > troff because of the hyphenation issue, but of course i cannot > tell how hacky it would be to implement it now and above all > wether it would be at all desirable to support \[u ] stuff there, > or wether a clean UTF-8 (or whatever) rewrite of the processing > pipeline would be more promising.. Just like i said.. > > |Sorry. > > Oh no, please, why this? > > --steffen > >
