Re: ELPA commit freeze

[Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>]

On 23.08.2013 03:51, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> To have the description recognized by both Elpa and Melpa, currently I'd
>> have to keep the same text in README.md and Commentary.  And
>> describe-package' buffer from Melpa would end up looking better due to not
>> having extraneous info.
>
> I don't think MELPA is very important here.

Until ELPA supports snapshots and updates faster than in 24 hours, Melpa 
is important, to me at least.

> I guess you use it so as to
> distribute snapshots of the code, but I think we need that for ELPA
> anyway (we already have it for Org, tho it's terribly ad-hoc).

So far I see only one option for Org installation. To distribute 
snapshots, you'd have to use a separate package archive, right? One 
that's also disabled by default? What would be the advantages over 
Melpa? Its audience would likely be (and remain) smaller, for example.

> So assuming we'll have a "GNU ELPA snapshots" archive (help welcome),
> this is a non-problem.

It's either "help welcome" or "a non-problem", can't be both.
I'm not convinced this is something worth doing.

> You currently have duplication between Commentary: and the homepage.
> I'm just suggesting to move that duplication from Commentary: to
> README.md.  So duplication-wise it's no worse than what we
> currently have.

It would be. A README.md, if present, is expected to have Installation 
section and, basically, most of you see on the home page.
So far, what's duplicated is mostly Usage, with some additional info 
added in Commentary.

The Commentary was written before me, by the way. The part about "how to 
write a back-end" probably need to move somewhere.