add vi formatting directives and remove emacs ones?

[Bernhard Fischer]

Folks,

On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:16:07AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>On Fri, 19 May 2006, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 04:34:52PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> >On Fri, 19 May 2006, Glenn L. McGrath wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 18 May 2006 09:48:57 -0400 (EDT)
>> >> "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday at mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >   if this is the consensus, i can toss together a patch that adds that>
>> >> > to all files that currently don't have it and send it offline to rob.
>> >> > are there any objections?  is that content agreeable to everyone?
>> >>
>> >> Sounds good to me.
>> >
>> >um ... what part?  the emacs stuff at the bottom or the
>> >single-line, bernhard-supplied vi line at the top?  perhaps someone
>> >could be absolutely precise about what should go into these files.
>>
>> I vote for the single-line vi and for removing the emacs block :)
>
>ok.  what i can do is create a separate patch for that that you can
>simply apply in addition to the vi patch, and treat that as a single
>svn commit.  does that work for you?

Yes, that's fine.

I already got the emacs-removal patch from you.

Since i do not use emacs (often), i want to wait a few days to hear if
anyone is opposed to these two patches.

People,
Are there objections if we remove the emacs blocks and add single-line
hints for vi throughout the tree?