Re: [ELPA] New package: plz

[Adam Porter <adam@alphapapa.net>]

On 5/11/22 13:55, Philip Kaludercic wrote:
> Daniel Martín <mardani29@yahoo.es> writes:
> 
>> Adam Porter <adam@alphapapa.net> writes:
>>
>> [...], I think it's wise to rename the library to something
>> more descriptive before people start writing packages using it.  It
>> will be much harder to rename the library later.
> 
> I would agree, but I know that Adam and I have different opinions on the
> matter.

I've often advocated for descriptive names when reviewing MELPA 
submissions, but I've also come to appreciate concise, distinctive 
names.  In this case, as I wrote in the commentary, there are already 
packages named url.el, request.el, and http.el (the latter of which 
serves a different purpose altogether).

And I think it doesn't matter here: if someone wonders what plz.el does, 
they can "C-h P plz RET" and find out.  And if someone is looking for an 
HTTP library, they can "M-x list-packages RET / d http RET" and find some.

The prefix "plz" is concise, which is valuable in code.  And a bit of 
mild humor is...well, software can be very dry, and Lisp is supposed to 
be fun, so I like it.  :)  (Also, naming things is hard.)

As to inclusion in core, as Eli said, that wouldn't be appropriate as 
long as it requires curl.  As well, while I've been using it 
successfully for a couple of years now, and, as I wrote in the readme, 
it's generally useful for most HTTP needs, with regard to HTTP features 
it's far from complete.  It needs to be used more widely and tested more 
thoroughly, and being on ELPA would be a good step toward that.

Having said that, if it were to eventually mature to the point where it 
didn't require curl and were suitable for core, renaming it would be 
appropriate, and I think it wouldn't be a problem to do so then.

Thanks for the feedback.