From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: ELPA policy Date: Sat, 09 May 2020 09:22:04 +0300 Message-ID: <83h7wphblf.fsf@gnu.org> References: <0c88192c-3c33-46ed-95cb-b4c6928016e3@default> <83zhaij4qn.fsf@gnu.org> <835zd6ihns.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="58405"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat May 09 08:22:45 2020 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 1jXIsn-000F69-6W for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 09 May 2020 08:22:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40826 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXIsl-0004n3-PN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 09 May 2020 02:22:43 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52804) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXIsI-0004O2-DD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 May 2020 02:22:14 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:46065) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXIsI-0004r0-4L; Sat, 09 May 2020 02:22:14 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4067 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jXIsH-00070i-OO; Sat, 09 May 2020 02:22:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Monnier on Fri, 08 May 2020 19:16:03 -0400) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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:249360 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 19:16:03 -0400 > > >> > So maybe it's time we defined the minimum requirements for packages to > >> > be included in ELPA? > >> What good would it do? > > It will get us on the same page when we are reviewing packages > > and patches for ELPA. > > That's not a very high concern for me, compared to the concern of keeping > GNU ELPA relevant and vaguely up-to-date. Excuse me, but what do you mean by "for me"? Isn't GNU ELPA an important part of the Emacs project? I'd expect something like "for us" or "for Emacs", in which case not just you personally have a say. And why do I have to submit bug reports against an ELPA package for violation of our coding conventions? I'd expect the maintainer of the package to be asked to fix those as a precondition for accepting the package in GNU ELPA, or at least as a long-term plan to which the maintainer agreed in advance (in which case no bug report would have been necessary). What am I missing here?