Re: PL support

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Kangas <address@hidden>
> Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 10:04:05 -0400
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, 
>       address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> 
> It is a problem that basic functionality for several important use-cases
> is missing OOTB.  Some examples have been given in this thread.
> 
> It is also a clear drawback that we can't include nice-to-have
> functionality such as Magit (one of our "killer apps").

I agree that these are voids in the Emacs functionality.  The argument
is not about whether there are voids, but about the ways to fill them.

> >              But as a project, we have our conventions and standards,
> > and contributors are kindly requested to follow them when they
> > contribute to Emacs.  Every project does that, and there's nothing
> > wrong with such requirements.  Those requirements are meant to keep
> > the quality of Emacs high enough.
> 
> We would not need to lower our standards by introducing "ELPA Contrib"
> or "MELPA-libre".  We could still choose which packages to include, and
> the conditions for doing so.

I don't know what are MELPA-libre or ELPA Contrib.  It sounds like
they are ideas, not real repositories.  If the intent is to create
package repositories that are not part of the Emacs project, I have no
objections (and even if I did, people could rightfully ignore them).