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 16:53:55 -0600 Message-ID: <86fv0d8nzw.fsf@stephe-leake.org> References: <87ziyuaqhl.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> <87d1vhsmuj.fsf@isaac.fritz.box> <878u65slue.fsf@isaac.fritz.box> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1447196088 17131 80.91.229.3 (10 Nov 2015 22:54:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 22:54:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: aaronecay@gmail.com, Eli Zaretskii , Stromeko@nexgo.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov To: David Engster Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 10 23:54:35 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 1ZwHo1-0004k6-LK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:54:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35979 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwHo1-0003qI-GB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 17:54:25 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38810) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwHnm-0003q4-Pv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 17:54:11 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwHnh-00044z-Pb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 17:54:10 -0500 Original-Received: from gproxy5-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com ([67.222.38.55]:49457) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwHnh-00044t-Ie for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 17:54:05 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 28312 invoked by uid 0); 10 Nov 2015 22:54:04 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw4) (10.0.90.85) by gproxy5.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 10 Nov 2015 22:54:04 -0000 Original-Received: from host114.hostmonster.com ([74.220.207.114]) by cmgw4 with id fyu11r0092UdiVW01yu4C0; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 15:54:04 -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=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=3sAksf8IVw_tBIKYEiwA:9 Original-Received: from [76.218.37.33] (port=52803 helo=TAKVER2) by host114.hostmonster.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwHnc-0002If-T5; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 15:54:01 -0700 In-Reply-To: (John Wiegley's message of "Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:43:53 -0800") 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: 67.222.38.55 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:193989 Archived-At: John Wiegley writes: >>>>>> David Engster writes: > >> This is not about reaching a consensus. This is about you giving proper >> reasons for such a big change. > > To be clear, I would also put Eshell (though not pcomplete) into the category > of "big things that should be in ELPA" -- albeit, the subset of ELPA that will > be in the release tarball. > > It's hard to pin down why in a manner that fits in an e-mail. If Eshell were > in ELPA today, and we were talking about moving it into core, I would have > just as much trouble justifying that move too. Perhaps this simply underscores > the fact that we don't have an agreed upon ELPA policy we can all > refer to. Yes. > OK, David, I won't decide this by fiat. Let us decide what our ELPA policy > will be, until it becomes clear, based on that document, what should go where, > and why. We'll defer discussions of package movement until we have that in > place. Thank you. -- -- Stephe