|
From: | Dmitry Gutov |
Subject: | Re: ELPA commit freeze |
Date: | Thu, 22 Aug 2013 03:20:03 +0300 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8 |
On 22.08.2013 02:56, Stefan Monnier wrote:
Maybe they should be different: a homepage can list [different] installation options, but the contents of a `describe-package' buffer don't need any of them.They don't need them, but having them doesn't hurt.
README.md also may be missing usage information that's in Commentary. I've checked, and it's actually the case with all packages I'm maintaining (except one, out of 6), whether I'm the author or not.
I've mentioned the issues in which is was discussed, feel free to participate.
But if Melpa is going to generate readme.txt from the Commentary, and ELPA - from README.md, I'd hate to be forced to keep (more than a bare minimum of) duplicate information there.
Take company's README.md, for example. It's barren, but Commentary in company.el contains what you'd expect from a description. I'd like to keep things that way there.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |