[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PL support
From: |
Dmitry Gutov |
Subject: |
Re: PL support |
Date: |
Sun, 10 May 2020 16:28:10 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 |
On 10.05.2020 07:08, Clément Pit-Claudel wrote:
In principle, I disagree: as long as Eglot is maintained and works well, we*should*
present it as "blessed", and we can do that in introduction videos,
documentation, tutorials, etc.
But why more than lsp-mode?
Because they choose to participate in the "core" Emacs development very little?
Oh? I thought we chose to exclude them by writing a competing package instead
of trying to bring them aboard.
We did what? I didn't write anything like that.
Only one person did, on his own volition. Then the package got added to
ELPA on usual conditions.
What does it mean for an external package to participate in the core Emacs
development?
Well, um, that would mean for individual authors to participate, I
guess. Maybe contribute useful code as libraries. Example of another
failed discussion: https://github.com/emacs-lsp/lsp-ui/issues/50
And for packages to be contributed to GNU ELPA, with the subsequent
possibility of having useful bits extracted and generalized.
And because they chose not to get included in GNU ELPA, which would be a
"reward" in itself (oob availability for new users). We couldn't mention
packages not in GNU ELPA in documentation as prominently anyway.
Really? The only thing I could find is
https://github.com/emacs-lsp/lsp-mode/issues/83, where the general opinion is
that it would be good for lsp-mode to be in core, until they (mistakenly) seem
to conclude that eglot is in core already. What am I missing?
You're missing the first sentence in the message you are looking at.
What do you expect? I'm tired of chasing people and asking them to
contribute. Do you fault me not going there and asking again?
We couldn't mention packages not in GNU ELPA in documentation as prominently
anyway.
Why? Is the policy that it's bad to endorse code not *owned* by the FSF?
We can't make adding MELPA to the archives list a part of an official
tutorial. For multiple reasons, code ownership only one of them.
- Re: PL support, (continued)
- Re: PL support, João Távora, 2020/05/09
- Re: PL support, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/05/09
- Re: PL support, Clément Pit-Claudel, 2020/05/09
- Re: PL support, João Távora, 2020/05/09
- Re: PL support, Dmitry Gutov, 2020/05/09
- Re: PL support, Clément Pit-Claudel, 2020/05/09
- Re: PL support, Dmitry Gutov, 2020/05/09
- Re: PL support, Clément Pit-Claudel, 2020/05/10
- Re: PL support,
Dmitry Gutov <=
- Re: PL support, João Távora, 2020/05/10
- Re: PL support, Stefan Monnier, 2020/05/10
- Re: PL support, Dmitry Gutov, 2020/05/10
- Re: PL support, Richard Stallman, 2020/05/10
- Re: PL support, 조성빈, 2020/05/10
- Re: PL support, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2020/05/11
- Re: PL support, Stefan Kangas, 2020/05/11
- Re: PL support, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2020/05/11
- Re: PL support, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/05/11
- Re: PL support, Stefan Kangas, 2020/05/11