From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: ELPA policy Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 17:10:42 -0600 Message-ID: <8637wd8n7x.fsf@stephe-leake.org> References: <87ziyuaqhl.fsf@petton.fr> <87fv0labbf.fsf@web.de> <87y4eda0kl.fsf@petton.fr> <22074.42230.156669.584780@retriever.mtv.corp.google.com> <87ziyoxvdp.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <83k2psnzyh.fsf@gnu.org> <87mvuorz7n.fsf@gmail.com> <8337wfon3f.fsf@gnu.org> <56401834.8080402@yandex.ru> <83ziynma4s.fsf@gnu.org> <5640C6A0.5010709@yandex.ru> <83twovm9es.fsf@gnu.org> <868u65afvh.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <87lha5snji.fsf@isaac.fritz.box> <83oaf1ll4y.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1447197140 1959 80.91.229.3 (10 Nov 2015 23:12:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:12:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: deng@randomsample.de, John Wiegley , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Stromeko@nexgo.de, aaronecay@gmail.com, dgutov@yandex.ru To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 11 00:12:08 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwI4K-0003Sj-A4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:11:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36067 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwI4K-0006ll-7V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:11:16 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44812) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwI44-0006lU-0D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:11:00 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwI3z-0001E4-Vz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:10:59 -0500 Original-Received: from gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com ([67.222.33.93]:52482) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwI3z-0001Dt-PD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:10:55 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 25521 invoked by uid 0); 10 Nov 2015 23:10:51 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw4) (10.0.90.85) by gproxy8.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 10 Nov 2015 23:10:51 -0000 Original-Received: from host114.hostmonster.com ([74.220.207.114]) by cmgw4 with id fzAo1r00A2UdiVW01zArQ4; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:10:51 -0700 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=IekUBwaa c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=CQdxDb2CKd3SRg4I0/XZPQ==:117 a=CQdxDb2CKd3SRg4I0/XZPQ==:17 a=DsvgjBjRAAAA:8 a=f5113yIGAAAA:8 a=9i_RQKNPAAAA:8 a=hEr_IkYJT6EA:10 a=x_XPkuGwIRMA:10 a=qtqOOiqGOCEA:10 a=mDV3o1hIAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=vaJtXVxTAAAA:8 a=IjihnKyKhd1gPSDLvGcA:9 Original-Received: from [76.218.37.33] (port=52917 helo=TAKVER2) by host114.hostmonster.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwI3r-0002xf-Ul; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:10:48 -0700 In-Reply-To: <83oaf1ll4y.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:17:17 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (windows-nt) X-Identified-User: {2442:host114.hostmonster.com:stephele:stephe-leake.org} {sentby:smtp auth 76.218.37.33 authed with stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org} X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 67.222.33.93 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:193995 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: John Wiegley >> Cc: Stephen Leake , >> aaronecay@gmail.com, Eli Zaretskii , >> Stromeko@nexgo.de, Dmitry Gutov , >> emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:52:41 -0800 >> >> > Why? >> >> There will never be 100% agreement on whether they should be in ELPA, or be in >> Core, so I'm making the decision that they belong in ELPA. > > IMO, it's a mistake to move CEDET. Bald statements of preference, without rationale, do not help move this discussion forward. We are trying to establish a general ELPA policy, not just vote on one particular package. What is it about CEDET that makes it a poor candidate? How would your workflow suffer if it was moved? How would users suffer? -- -- Stephe