[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Project systems (again)

From: Bozhidar Batsov
Subject: Re: Project systems (again)
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 11:55:00 +0300

On 18 April 2014 17:03, Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden> wrote:
Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

> FWIW, I'd prefer that you work with EDE developers to improve and
> extend what they have; starting from scratch (or almost from scratch)
> sounds like waste of effort, especially since some of the EDE is
> already in Emacs.

I disagree: this wouldn't be starting from scratch.

Projectile is one such existing system that people use, and a generic
interface would allow for better integration with other packages, even
those that choose to be project-management-system-agnostic, which is
generally a good choice.

Personally, I use Projectile already, and switching to EDE wouldn't be
an improvement for my use. As a bonus, its primary developer (Bozhidar
Batsov) already has copyright assignment on file, so it wouldn't be
inconceivable to add it to GNU ELPA soon or eventually. But of course,
there will be other contributors to take care of.

Btw, Projectile was the reason I signed the copyright assignment in the first place. Stefan approached me a few years back
about including it into ELPA, but for some reason we never actually got to doing this.  

Projectile is not without its quirks, but I'm fairly certain its one of the best project management options around. What's most important, however, is that it's pretty well battle tested - thousands of users have been using it over the last 3 years and have submitted numerous bug reports, feature requests and patches. Starting for scratch would reset the counter on all (most) of that. I'm certainly biased, but I think focusing more effort on improving Projectile makes more sense than implementing an alternative solution.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]