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: GNU ELPA package discoverability Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 17:42:24 +0300 Message-ID: <83lflevju7.fsf@gnu.org> References: <35DBF02E-44D7-41E5-A217-7D6EC84ED221@icloud.com> <4e937898-ae46-710a-cbca-e452a1156fa1@yandex.ru> <2e630dc7-ba1d-e4c9-74b3-4da976db1e82@yandex.ru> <83blmdxus4.fsf@gnu.org> <831rn8vy6o.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="3562"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rms@gnu.org, Emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Tim Cross Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue May 26 16:43:23 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 1jdana-0000qa-Ub for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 26 May 2020 16:43:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60834 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jdana-0001OD-13 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 26 May 2020 10:43:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41364) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jdamz-0000vq-SL for Emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 May 2020 10:42:45 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:45223) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jdamz-0003Kz-JU; Tue, 26 May 2020 10:42:45 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3931 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jdamr-0003VO-Uy; Tue, 26 May 2020 10:42:38 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Tim Cross on Tue, 26 May 2020 10:24:01 +1000) 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:251449 Archived-At: > From: Tim Cross > Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 10:24:01 +1000 > Cc: Richard Stallman , Emacs developers > > So basically what's missing is the write access issue. That should be > a single sentence: we don't have ELPA write access, only access to the > entire Emacs repository, so they need to request membership in the > Emacs project. > > That would certainly be a good start. However, is that a maintainable approach. That's what we have now. IMO information for contributors should reflect the present state of affairs. > Assume we are successful in getting more packages into ELPA, increasing the discoverability of appropriate > packages without the need to add repositories like MELPA. Will all of those developers be entitled to write > access to the GNU git repository? What about Richard's proposed non-copyrighted repository? Perhaps now > is the right time to look at the architecture and consider breaking off ELPA into a separate authentication > realm? If and when the situation changes, we will update the information. It is not useful to worry about issues that didn't yet materialize, and are anybody's guess when they will. > > Questions about what can/should go into ELPA, what should be included in Emacs > > core and what cannot go into ELPA are not addressed at all (the README is > > probably not the right place for this information) > > It's quite expected that this is not described, because we are still > arguing about that. > > I think this is an important argument to resolve in order to address the other issues that have been raised, > such as improving package discoverability or implementation of a non-copyrights assigned repository. ELPA > has existed for quite some time now and we still don't have a clear definition of what should go into it. How > long do we need to argue about it before making a decision? Is anything being recorded regarding the > various arguments or is it just endless unconnected threads in the mail list? In other words, how far have we > moved towards a consensus? I don't know. A proposal was put on the table, but some of the important stakeholders didn't yet respond to it. If you know what that means and can predict whether, when and how a decision will be reached, maybe you can advise me which shares to buy to become rich.