Re:SpaceVim – Like Spacemacs, but for Vim
by clhodapp on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @12:04PM
(#13319943)
At risk of putting words in the another poster's mouth, I don't think the idea was that a distribution needs to have changes to binaries, just that it has to include the whole thing. I think the notion is that since you don't get your build of Emacs as part of Spacemacs, Spacemacs isn't a distribution of Emacs. I tend to agree. I think it could be a distribution of Emacs even if it were just upstream Emacs plus a simple conf file, but the key is that it has to include the thing it is a distribution of.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:SpaceVim – Like Spacemacs, but for Vim
by jasonm23 on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @06:34PM
(#13323195)
Thank you for filling in the blanks. You pretty much summed up my definition.
I can only guess at the reason why Spacemacs team chooses this term, but there is one simple problem with it.
Users of Spacemacs are encouraged (by this naming quirk) to treat it as somehow essentially different to Emacs. That's wrong.
It would be of benefit to all for the code that comprises Spacemacs (layers mainly) to be released as packages. It would place greater emphasis on Emacs as the actual core product, and allow people to use and collaborate on smaller chunks of Spacemacs, without the monolith problem.
Re:SpaceVim – Like Spacemacs, but for Vim
by syl20bnr on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @01:55PM
(#13321013)
More info on this here: https://github.com/syl20bnr/spacemacs/blob/master/doc/FAQ.or...
Can found more explanations on reddit for the bravest :-)