Re: dash.el [was: Re: Imports / inclusion of s.el into Emacs]

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > I'd say it all depends. We probably aren't going to simply follow what 
  > the author will be asking for, either.

  > Do they want code review? We could do it once (couldn't we?), but if the 
  > author wants all the changes reviewed all the time, we would probably do 
  > that only for most important packages. Ones that will be enabled for 
  > default, maybe?

If we are going to continue saying, of GNU ELPA, that "You can trust
it", I think that we need to do some code review for every package in
GNU ELPA.  We had better treat serious bugs in GNU ELPA the way we
treat serious bugs in Emacs.

If we want to have two different ways of treating those packages,
we need to show the users which category each package is in.

The reliable way to do that is to have two archives: one we say you
can trust, and one that provides only a place to distribute them.

Good names might be "GNU Emacs Exocore" for the ones we review, and
"GNU ELPA" for those we don't.  I suggest "Exocore" as meaning "like
the core, but hosted separately."

Or maybe, GNU ELPA for the ones we review, and Alt-ELPA for what we don't.

For now, let's call them reviewed and unreviewed.


MAYBE it will work well if we get papers for the reviewed packages
but not for the unreviewed.  Then the reviewed packages might be
merged into the core, and the unreviewed are ones we don't consider
moving into the core.  So if we think a package might be good to put
in the core, we should review it AND get papers for it.

Eli, do you think that makes sense?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)