From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Bozhidar Batsov" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Packages quality (was: [nongnu] main 74116339a8 2/3: * elpa-packages (anzu): New package) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2022 17:03:18 +0200 Message-ID: <3c5d2b69-7292-4e15-82e5-9f146979257d@www.fastmail.com> References: <164145738158.2838.5769558384331859964@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20220106082302.0A19CC0DA1E@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <87k0fdmbat.fsf@posteo.net> <87tueh3s2x.fsf@posteo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=91fe7833b29d4fd9a787ab742bb05d77 Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="8933"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-4526-gbc24f4957e-fm-20220105.001-gbc24f495 To: "Emacs Devel" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 06 16:04:59 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n5UK1-00021P-4k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 06 Jan 2022 16:04:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41290 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n5UJz-0002UC-UZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 06 Jan 2022 10:04:55 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:42352) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n5UIo-0001O1-So for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jan 2022 10:03:42 -0500 Original-Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:39541) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n5UIl-0008Lu-Re for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jan 2022 10:03:42 -0500 Original-Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1EED5C0165 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 10:03:36 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from imap43 ([10.202.2.93]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 06 Jan 2022 10:03:36 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=batsov.dev; h= mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=4OAPys3JPqpWDXUlIKmx/fDbooSze/g tdcEpyjLdQMw=; b=JVejOLF/tdWeR2YO0Ac00qIOPLAVaziJqOvG9OZyh/FObEz DwmdM7HPpdb8avyO/cpmN4jiQNgo1x6zhLnsvQ6nSzJqun98lnhE594nHj/OFYwO yc/SByFlPZjmBdJ9n6QziuZr33qN/TROurlS18FzCIoxd9peiCggfgX9B1QXNcEL U+mx0EXCDCVLTJObzLaye5fWIOhZEhlKZbB58JwVfH+64X2rGXUkpCp51xvDvBB+ qA/WUn8EU5y1WnNErPuPSC8Z1L1nXqTODNVBzPWM8MK0aS2GLA+0dRRz81oOCoSM Uf5nTf/ekHaTapNNbmzD3qUCWtNYwydhyHMjtCg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=4OAPys 3JPqpWDXUlIKmx/fDbooSze/gtdcEpyjLdQMw=; b=ebg/3wLr3ara4qwBM1AUKQ GQcLNmaLaBtO8pl5TLkvfYOYiwsYNLnBpuQZTmwiccVNx6IhRF8B94kGgypoWzp8 NDix6QJ8DzSLgdvgGLwwRK7ZKK4nfyUQuT4b6m0ruR3CqhLcBIK971/sNwL21jX+ Rn7MYLU+HUGIBoxQn5n92sUqgasFkFc/RV52Saz0xZK9XlBvZk7NH56VJhcRFMHN q0UfHMe94ORoeRaM58Op2lTtSNTOxJV7Qt8RzJaQK1e7thl1C3d24iaAvVDt+sHe J1/zKyI8Iq3X8Gk0yupU7vb+N/DJbCqLzh6FYY/7/jBEoWuXCT/sldX+p7IRUpfQ == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvuddrudefledgjedtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesrgdtreerreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdeuohii hhhiuggrrhcuuegrthhsohhvfdcuoegsohiihhhiuggrrhessggrthhsohhvrdguvghvqe enucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeegvdetfeekkeetieelffdtkedutdfhffefgedtvefhteef veejhffgtdekjeeiueenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrih hlfhhrohhmpegsohiihhhiuggrrhessggrthhsohhvrdguvghv X-ME-Proxy: Original-Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 26387AC0E99; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 10:03:36 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=66.111.4.27; envelope-from=bozhidar@batsov.dev; helo=out3-smtp.messagingengine.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:284327 Archived-At: --91fe7833b29d4fd9a787ab742bb05d77 Content-Type: text/plain I'm also curious what "redundant package" even means in this context. There are always many ways to achieve something and usually there's no clear way to decide if some approach is much better than the alternatives. Given how early we are with NonGNU ELPA I think that concerns about "obsolete" and "redundant" packages are quite overdone. On Thu, Jan 6, 2022, at 4:30 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > Do we want to collect as many packages as possible, even if the > > implementations and practices are sub-optimal, are displaced by > > alternative implementations in Emacs or ELPA, etc. or should we try to > > restrict the packages to popular, "good citizens" of the Emacs package > > space, in an effort to raise the standards and clean up "obsolete" and > > "redundant" packages. It is probably clear that I have an inclination > > towards the latter position: Going forward it seems preferable to have > > as many useful and idiomatic packages available directly via the ELPAs, > > without burdening newcomers with duplicate functionalities. My > > motivation in contributing to NonGNU ELPA is to further this goal. > > Note that (Non)GNU ELPA in the long term will inevitably also contain > old/redundant/outdated packages unless we go and actively remove such > packages (which we haven't done so far). > > So, I think if we want to improve the quality, in the long term, the way > to do that is not just by restricting which packages we add, but by > finding ways to regularly re-assess the quality of packages and coming > up with good ways to remove/demote packages based on that (and similarly > promote those packages that are currently particularly good). > > > Stefan > > > --91fe7833b29d4fd9a787ab742bb05d77 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm also curiou= s what "redundant package" even means in this context. There are always = many ways to achieve something and usually there's no clear way to decid= e if some approach is much better than the alternatives. Given how early= we are with NonGNU ELPA I think that concerns about "obsolete" and "red= undant" packages are quite overdone.

On Th= u, Jan 6, 2022, at 4:30 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> Do we want to collect as man= y packages as possible, even if the
> implementations a= nd practices are sub-optimal, are displaced by
> altern= ative implementations in Emacs or ELPA, etc. or should we try to
> restrict the packages to popular, "good citizens" of the Ema= cs package
> space, in an effort to raise the standards= and clean up "obsolete" and
> "redundant" packages.&nb= sp; It is probably clear that I have an inclination
> t= owards the latter position: Going forward it seems preferable to have
> as many useful and idiomatic packages available directl= y via the ELPAs,
> without burdening newcomers with dup= licate functionalities.  My
> motivation in contri= buting to NonGNU ELPA is to further this goal.

<= div>Note that (Non)GNU ELPA in the long term will inevitably also contai= n
old/redundant/outdated packages unless we go and activel= y remove such
packages (which we haven't done so far).
=

So, I think if we want to improve the quality,= in the long term, the way
to do that is not just by restr= icting which packages we add, but by
finding ways to regul= arly re-assess the quality of packages and coming
up with = good ways to remove/demote packages based on that (and similarly
promote those packages that are currently particularly good).
=


     &= nbsp;  Stefan




--91fe7833b29d4fd9a787ab742bb05d77--