Re: New ELPA policy proposal

[Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am@gmail.com>]

Ok, I had misunderstood you. I thought you were suggesting we do some
automated pulling from arbitrary remote repos. But I see you still want
to keep the code in savannah repos, which is indeed more reasonable.

However, I have no idea of the logistics involved in setting up several
(or several dozen?) savannah repos. So it would be nice if one of the
big shots could provide feedback.

Oleh Krehel <ohwoeowho@gmail.com> writes:
> What I propose is to split GELPA into 130 git repositories on
> Savannah.

Let's slow down a bit. :-)
Plenty of packages require very little maintenance are doing just fine
as a part of the repository itself. It would be nothing but a pain to
spread all of these small packages into their own repos.

Other than that, I'm all on board. Giving packages _the possibility_ of
being a savannah repo (which are then added as submodules of elpa.git)
sounds right and good for me. And I know that many packages would
cherish this possibility.

If that turns out to work well, we can maybe make it so that the only
way of having "external" packages (dropping the current two methods). So
every package will either be directly in elpa.git or a savannah
submodule.

> All Emacs devs will still have the same access to every package. But
> the commit log won't be a mingled mess: each package will have its own
> commit log and its own version - the latest version tag on the
> appropriate branch.

All good. (Again, as long as it's a possibility, not a demand. Most
packages barely make a dent on the commit log.)