[tex-live] Primitive parity, \expanded and \Ucharcat

[Joseph Wright]

On 13/05/2018 13:36, Jonathan Kew wrote:
> On 13/05/2018 13:15, Joseph Wright wrote:
>> On 13/05/2018 12:23, Jonathan Kew wrote:
>>> On 13/05/2018 10:57, Joseph Wright wrote:
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> Modulo any issues that show up in testing, all of the above is now 
>>>> done and on my GitHub fork 
>>>> (https://github.com/josephwright/texlive-source/tree/Ucharcat: this 
>>>> branch has 'all the stuff' on it).
>>>>
>>>> I know that https://github.com/texjporg/tex-jp-build already has a 
>>>> branch for \expanded. What's the best way to request 'officially' 
>>>> that the changes go into pdfTeX/XeTeX? I can send a .diff to the 
>>>> pdfTeX dev list, and put in a pull request on SourceForge for XeTeX, 
>>>> if that's best.
>>>
>>> Thanks for working on these things, Joseph.
>>>
>>> For xetex, a pull request would be the best approach, I think; or if 
>>> it's feasible to do separate PRs for each feature, that would 
>>> probably make reviewing and tracking the changes easier.
>>>
>>> Is there documentation of the added features available somewhere, so 
>>> we can more accurately understand what we're thinking of adding? Thanks!
>>>
>>> JK
>>
>> Excellent: I'll start on putting something together later today.
>>
>> Do you want all PRs against master or can they be 'chained'? Adding 
>> primitives, it's easier if you are working knowing which others have 
>> been created.
> 
> "Chained" should be fine, I expect; I doubt there'd be any reason we'll 
> want to take a later one but decide against an earlier one.
> 
> At which point perhaps a single PR is just as good, as long each feature 
> is a separate commit so that it comes in manageable chunks. From a quick 
> glance at your fork, it looks like that's how it would naturally appear. 
> So, feel free to do whichever seems easiest for you.
> 
> JK

Hello Jonathan,

Have you been able to look at my merge requests? We are now moving to 
using \expanded for other engines: it's going into pdfTeX and (u)pTeX, 
and is already in LuaTeX. Ideally, we'd like to avoid XeTeX being 'left 
behind'.

Joseph