Re: [ELPA] New package: rec-mode

[Antoine Kalmbach]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> Nowadays we prefer `external`.

Ok.

>
>> a development version will anyway be hosted in the
>> recutils.git repository.
>
> That's going to be inconvenient unless you keep it in a separate branch
> (otherwise, you can't just push/pull between elpa.git and recutils.git,
> so you end up fighting to convince Git to keep the history of
> rec-mode.el without bringing along all the history of recutils, plus
> ignore all the other files plus remember that `etc/rec-mode.el` in one
> is just `rec-mode.el` in the other, etc...).

Understood. We will create a rec-mode.git separate from recutils.git and
then just push to an external ref on ELPA.

>
>> Some minor things that need to be addressed before the package can be
>> submitted formally, but these are fairly trivial to address:
>>
>>   * Use of `cl' rather than `cl-lib'
>>   * Adding required package.el headers for the major mode
>
> Actually, we can fix those afterwards.  If you want help with that, just
> ask (but beware that I'll also change it to lexical-binding and won't
> be able to resist making various other cosmetic changes like using
> `define-derived-mode`).

Ok. I'll see how far I can get, we could probably start with a
`Package-Version: 0' initially and then iron out any kinks before it's
released. Do we need push rights to elpa.git to be able to push to the
external ref?

>> Then it comes down to copyright assignment: we need to check if
>> committers to rec-mode.el have given copyright assignment to FSF for
>> GNU Emacs.
>
> Actually it doesn't have to be "for GNU Emacs", but rather for their
> contribution (i.e. it could be covered by another assignment such as one
> for the recutils package, tho AFAIK there are no such assignments).
>

I checked with Jose E. Marchesi, GNU recutils doesn't require FSF
assignment. Do we need to do anything special about the Elisp
contributions, or there any problems with this?

-- 
Antoine Kalmbach