From xemacs-m  Thu Feb 27 08:12:47 1997
Received: from omega.intranet.com (omega.intranet.com [192.148.106.20])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA01499
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:12:46 -0600 (CST)
Received: by omega.intranet.com; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA21428; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:13:13 -0500
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:12:34 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199702271412.JAA16030@blight.IntraNet.com>
From: Jonathan Edwards <edwards@intranet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com>
Cc: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: XEmacs-20.1-b3 is released
In-Reply-To: <m2u3myn1dp.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
References: <m2u3myn1dp.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
X-Face: #bA9Kpw-a@xMyaNJ-2wie(5Lje^S*i^8!VUOF84U!/jSPG*y@3s4Qu+\-FBQ?vQpE1S1<Vo
 TeWVx=wH}wf_WC]x:D%qd,r*|!~q=gVAWEA;T~3V4};X$r7W!FA(#Zj'E7M^(Tv)

Steven L. Baur writes:
> (Please) No more complaints about lazy(good-for-nothing)-lock.el.
> Either don't use it, or let's reach a consensus on which version
> should be used.  I take Simon's comments at the top seriously, and
> frankly I don't think XEmacs has the required features to handle it.
> We either implement the functions he needs or we drop lazy-lock (IMO).

My opinion:
Breaking XEmacs for all users with lazy-lock loaded in their .emacs (as
suggested by the sample.emacs) should not be an option. Either sync up
with the needed FSF timer features (a non-trivial task, I presume), or
revert to a version of lazy-lock that works (no worse than before).

