* bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa packages
@ 2014-02-13 2:05 Glenn Morris
2014-02-13 14:08 ` Ted Zlatanov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Glenn Morris @ 2014-02-13 2:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 16735
Package: emacs
Severity: minor
Some elpa.gnu.org packages seem not to understand what the Keywords:
header is for. Eg coffee-mode uses "coffeescript", "major", and "mode".
None of these are standard, none of these are shared with a single other
package. sml-mode uses just "sml".
This header should contain relevant entry(ies) from finder-known-keywords.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa packages
2014-02-13 2:05 bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa packages Glenn Morris
@ 2014-02-13 14:08 ` Ted Zlatanov
2014-02-13 16:00 ` Stefan Monnier
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Ted Zlatanov @ 2014-02-13 14:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Glenn Morris; +Cc: 16735
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:05:38 -0500 Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> wrote:
GM> Package: emacs
GM> Severity: minor
GM> Some elpa.gnu.org packages seem not to understand what the Keywords:
GM> header is for. Eg coffee-mode uses "coffeescript", "major", and "mode".
GM> None of these are standard, none of these are shared with a single other
GM> package. sml-mode uses just "sml".
GM> This header should contain relevant entry(ies) from finder-known-keywords.
Maybe we need to support a new "Tags:" header and to suggest to the
authors to migrate to it (and in the process set correct Keywords).
Ted
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa packages
2014-02-13 14:08 ` Ted Zlatanov
@ 2014-02-13 16:00 ` Stefan Monnier
2014-02-13 17:01 ` Ted Zlatanov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Monnier @ 2014-02-13 16:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Glenn Morris; +Cc: 16735
> Maybe we need to support a new "Tags:" header and to suggest to the
> authors to migrate to it (and in the process set correct Keywords).
I don't understand why a new header would help.
Stefan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa packages
2014-02-13 16:00 ` Stefan Monnier
@ 2014-02-13 17:01 ` Ted Zlatanov
2014-02-13 18:05 ` Stefan Monnier
2014-02-13 18:08 ` Glenn Morris
0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Ted Zlatanov @ 2014-02-13 17:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Monnier; +Cc: 16735
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:00:50 -0500 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>> Maybe we need to support a new "Tags:" header and to suggest to the
>> authors to migrate to it (and in the process set correct Keywords).
SM> I don't understand why a new header would help.
Keywords is supposed to match the finder keywords. Authors want a way
to tag their packages with arbitrary keywords = tags.
Ted
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa packages
2014-02-13 17:01 ` Ted Zlatanov
@ 2014-02-13 18:05 ` Stefan Monnier
2014-02-13 18:08 ` Glenn Morris
1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Monnier @ 2014-02-13 18:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Glenn Morris; +Cc: 16735
> Keywords is supposed to match the finder keywords.
No, they don't have to. But it's a good idea if they do. And same
would hold for "Tag".
Stefan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa packages
2014-02-13 17:01 ` Ted Zlatanov
2014-02-13 18:05 ` Stefan Monnier
@ 2014-02-13 18:08 ` Glenn Morris
2014-02-13 18:16 ` Glenn Morris
2014-02-13 18:21 ` Ted Zlatanov
1 sibling, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Glenn Morris @ 2014-02-13 18:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 16735
Ted Zlatanov wrote:
> Keywords is supposed to match the finder keywords.
Is it? Exclusively?
I used to think that, but I don't even know any more...
So many people use it for random "here's a list of any word I could
think of that is even vaguely related to this file".
> Authors want a way to tag their packages with arbitrary keywords =
> tags.
Calendar uses "Human-Keywords" for that, but no-one else does AFAICS.
IMO it is a shame "Keywords" was not called "Finder-Keywords" from the
start, if that is really what it was supposed to be.
Anyway, all I was hoping to get from this bug report is that Someone
would add the relevant finder keywords (languages, etc) to elpa.gnu.org
packages that lack them.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa packages
2014-02-13 18:08 ` Glenn Morris
@ 2014-02-13 18:16 ` Glenn Morris
2014-02-13 18:21 ` Ted Zlatanov
1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Glenn Morris @ 2014-02-13 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 16735
PS perhaps the describe-package stuff that adds the keywords buttons
should ignore unknown keywords?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa packages
2014-02-13 18:08 ` Glenn Morris
2014-02-13 18:16 ` Glenn Morris
@ 2014-02-13 18:21 ` Ted Zlatanov
2014-02-13 19:12 ` Stefan Monnier
1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Ted Zlatanov @ 2014-02-13 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Glenn Morris; +Cc: 16735
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:08:32 -0500 Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> wrote:
GM> Ted Zlatanov wrote:
>> Keywords is supposed to match the finder keywords.
GM> Is it? Exclusively?
GM> I used to think that, but I don't even know any more...
GM> So many people use it for random "here's a list of any word I could
GM> think of that is even vaguely related to this file".
I know, so I'm saying let's give them a new "Tags" header for that
purpose and gently encourage them to start using it.
>> Authors want a way to tag their packages with arbitrary keywords =
>> tags.
GM> Calendar uses "Human-Keywords" for that, but no-one else does AFAICS.
GM> IMO it is a shame "Keywords" was not called "Finder-Keywords" from the
GM> start, if that is really what it was supposed to be.
Yes, I agree.
GM> Anyway, all I was hoping to get from this bug report is that Someone
GM> would add the relevant finder keywords (languages, etc) to elpa.gnu.org
GM> packages that lack them.
I can do it, but in the process would like to start using Tags. Then we
have something to offer the authors so their intended tags (which
presumably are valuable) are not lost.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:05:22 -0500 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>> Keywords is supposed to match the finder keywords.
SM> No, they don't have to. But it's a good idea if they do.
Right.
SM> And same would hold for "Tag".
Why should it? It would be a new header, intended for arbitrary
strings, with no baggage. IOW you'd see
Keywords: language
Tags: mustache,handlebars
Does that make sense?
Ted
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa packages
2014-02-13 18:21 ` Ted Zlatanov
@ 2014-02-13 19:12 ` Stefan Monnier
2014-02-13 19:37 ` Glenn Morris
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Monnier @ 2014-02-13 19:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Glenn Morris; +Cc: 16735
> Why should it?
Because the finder keywords are not magical. They're just a starting
point for very general classification. But it makes a lot of sense to
put an "ocaml" keyword on ocaml-mode, tuareg-mode and merlin since all
3 provide functionality for ocaml. Similarly it makes a lot of sense to
use a "completion" keyword for company, icomplete, auto-complete,
completion-ui, semantic, etc...
What I mean is that there's no reason to separate the two. What the UI
could do, OTOH is to only "buttonize" those keywords that appear in more
than one package.
Stefan "who doesn't like the finder keywords very much anyway.
I mean, «convenience»? «tools»?"
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa packages
2014-02-13 19:12 ` Stefan Monnier
@ 2014-02-13 19:37 ` Glenn Morris
2014-02-13 19:47 ` Drew Adams
2014-02-13 21:32 ` Ted Zlatanov
2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Glenn Morris @ 2014-02-13 19:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Monnier; +Cc: 16735
Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> Why should it?
[...]
Since Ted uses "Mail-Copies-To: Never", and Gnus seems to then just pick
someone from the Cc: list (namely me) to use as the To: header, and
since you don't attribute your citations, I keep thinking you are
quoting me, but you aren't. Could you attribute your quotes?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa packages
2014-02-13 19:12 ` Stefan Monnier
2014-02-13 19:37 ` Glenn Morris
@ 2014-02-13 19:47 ` Drew Adams
2014-02-13 21:32 ` Ted Zlatanov
2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Drew Adams @ 2014-02-13 19:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Monnier, Glenn Morris; +Cc: 16735
> > Why should it?
>
> Because the finder keywords are not magical. They're just a
> starting point for very general classification. But it makes a lot
> of sense to put an "ocaml" keyword on ocaml-mode, tuareg-mode and
> merlin since all 3 provide functionality for ocaml. Similarly it
> makes a lot of sense to use a "completion" keyword for company,
> icomplete, auto-complete, completion-ui, semantic, etc...
>
> What I mean is that there's no reason to separate the two. What the
> UI could do, OTOH is to only "buttonize" those keywords that appear
> in more than one package.
+1 to all of that.
Keywords in the header are *not* Finder keywords, anyway. Finder
is one thing that makes use of them.
And even for that, I want Finder to be able to handle any keywords.
If someone wants/needs a more restrictive search that finds only
somebody's set of "official" keywords (which could be useful),
then that feature should be additional.
And it would be a trivial feature to add to Finder or whatever
(e.g. package.el): let users or code define known sets of
keywords to (optionally) recognize.
Keywords in the header have no particular meanings. They mean
what you want them to mean or what some particular code that
uses them makes them mean (do).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa packages
2014-02-13 19:12 ` Stefan Monnier
2014-02-13 19:37 ` Glenn Morris
2014-02-13 19:47 ` Drew Adams
@ 2014-02-13 21:32 ` Ted Zlatanov
2014-02-14 1:50 ` Stefan Monnier
2 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Ted Zlatanov @ 2014-02-13 21:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Monnier, Glenn Morris, 16735
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:12:26 -0500 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>> Why should it?
SM> Because the finder keywords are not magical. They're just a starting
SM> point for very general classification. But it makes a lot of sense to
SM> put an "ocaml" keyword on ocaml-mode, tuareg-mode and merlin since all
SM> 3 provide functionality for ocaml. Similarly it makes a lot of sense to
SM> use a "completion" keyword for company, icomplete, auto-complete,
SM> completion-ui, semantic, etc...
SM> What I mean is that there's no reason to separate the two. What the UI
SM> could do, OTOH is to only "buttonize" those keywords that appear in more
SM> than one package.
OK, but the original report here was to prune these keywords. So do I
fix the UI (since I created the buttons) as you suggest or do I prune
the keywords as Glenn suggested?
SM> Stefan "who doesn't like the finder keywords very much anyway.
SM> I mean, «convenience»? «tools»?"
Yes, I agree, and extra points for the fancy quotations :)
Ted
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa packages
2014-02-13 21:32 ` Ted Zlatanov
@ 2014-02-14 1:50 ` Stefan Monnier
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Monnier @ 2014-02-14 1:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ted Zlatanov; +Cc: 16735
> OK, but the original report here was to prune these keywords.
The reports points out two problems:
- the existing keywords include useless/incorrect elements.
- the fail to include some relevant finder-keywords.
So we should add appropriate finder-keywords, remove useless keywords,
and fix incorrect ones.
> Yes, I agree, and extra points for the fancy quotations :)
"<Multi_key> < <" and "<Multi_key> > >"
Stefan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-02-14 1:50 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-02-13 2:05 bug#16735: Not very useful "Keywords:" headers in some elpa packages Glenn Morris
2014-02-13 14:08 ` Ted Zlatanov
2014-02-13 16:00 ` Stefan Monnier
2014-02-13 17:01 ` Ted Zlatanov
2014-02-13 18:05 ` Stefan Monnier
2014-02-13 18:08 ` Glenn Morris
2014-02-13 18:16 ` Glenn Morris
2014-02-13 18:21 ` Ted Zlatanov
2014-02-13 19:12 ` Stefan Monnier
2014-02-13 19:37 ` Glenn Morris
2014-02-13 19:47 ` Drew Adams
2014-02-13 21:32 ` Ted Zlatanov
2014-02-14 1:50 ` Stefan Monnier
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).