[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ELPA policy
From: |
Stephen Leake |
Subject: |
Re: ELPA policy |
Date: |
Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:59:30 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (windows-nt) |
address@hidden (Phillip Lord) writes:
> John Wiegley <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>>>>>> Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> If a package is useful to recommend, and we CAN get papers for it, we
>>> definitely want to move it to GNU ELPA.
>>
>> Yes, this is why I want to clearly define ELPA policy, and streamline things
>> as much as possible for developers and users: so that it becomes a more
>> attractive means for distributing Emacs packages. I think many people may be
>> largely ignoring it right now, and so they reach for MELPA. Since so many
>> people contribute to MELPA, they consider it a more attractive distribution
>> platform.
>
>
> MELPA is also *easier* to contribute to. Aside from copyright issues, it
> involves writing something that looks like lisp, testing on your local
> fork, then a PR.
>
> With GNU ELPA, it involves some fairly obscure git cleverness.
It's only normal git cleverness; there's nothing special about the Gnu
ELPA git. Unless you are using an "external" package, perhaps.
I can understand treating all of git as "obscure", if that's what you
meant. I much prefer monotone.
> GNU ELPA could be made easier by allowing recipes, and by accepting
> PRs. This avoids the necessity to have commit access to GNU ELPA to
> contribute.
"PR" is "Pull Request"? Doesn't that mean "pull from my git repository"?
Or is it more general than that?
> Finally, I think that core devs should contribute to individual packages
> by PR to their repos.
I'm guessing "their repos" is _not_ Gnu ELPA git? So this only applies
to packages that have a primary repo that is not Gnu ELPA git.
I agree that any one that edits a Gnu ELPA package in Gnu ELPA git
should also notify the upstream project if there is one. But they do not
have to wait for approval if it's a critical bug.
Normal ettiquette should apply of course.
This is more important for tarball and core ELPA packages, since they
are part of the blessed Emacs standard library; Emacs developers can
edit those as if they were in core.
--
-- Stephe
- Re: ELPA policy, (continued)
- Re: ELPA policy, Stephen Leake, 2015/11/12
- Re: ELPA policy, Filipp Gunbin, 2015/11/13
- Re: ELPA policy, Richard Stallman, 2015/11/11
- Re: ELPA policy, John Wiegley, 2015/11/11
- Re: ELPA policy, Phillip Lord, 2015/11/12
- Re: ELPA policy, John Wiegley, 2015/11/12
- Re: ELPA policy,
Stephen Leake <=
- Re: ELPA policy, Richard Stallman, 2015/11/13
- Re: ELPA policy, JJ Asghar, 2015/11/13
- RE: ELPA policy, Drew Adams, 2015/11/11
- Re: ELPA policy, John Wiegley, 2015/11/11
- RE: ELPA policy, Drew Adams, 2015/11/11
- Re: ELPA policy, Richard Stallman, 2015/11/11
- RE: ELPA policy, Drew Adams, 2015/11/11
- Re: ELPA policy, Artur Malabarba, 2015/11/11
- Re: ELPA policy, Dmitry Gutov, 2015/11/11
- Re: ELPA policy, Richard Stallman, 2015/11/12