Re: Moving packages out of core to ELPA

[Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>]

JD Smith <jdtsmith@gmail.com> writes:

> That would imply that every instance of bringing a package into core
> is not a mistake

This is correct.

> , which suggests superhuman forecasting and decision-making.

Or a simple recognition of the principle that "more is better."

> But even when including a package is beneficial, situations change
> over time (>20 yrs, in this case).  It seems only prudent to
> reevaluate whether a given package still provides sufficient benefit
> given the non-zero costs associated with it.

Such costs are strictly zero, so long as the package has indeed fallen
out of interest.  The existence of maintainence work beyond the routine
copyright bump at each turn of the year suggests that there's life in
the old dog yet, and it would be vastly improper to declare it no longer
worthy of the same.

> Many which I mentioned in my initial message.  The most salient:
>
> - Reduces maintenance burdens, freeing time for packages that have
> more pressing issues. I have heard from emacs maintainers who have
> spent significant time trying to understand and fix bugs in IDLWAVE
> code that is likely unused (even by me).

Emacs developers also spend time scrutinizing and suggesting changes to
ELPA packages, which are reported through channels not unlike
emacs-diffs.  At any rate, there's nothing preventing its users from
demonstrating that IDLwave maintenance can be safely discontinued or
ignored--most of us would be more than glad to oblige.

> - Removes "tripping hazards" for users who inadvertently activate the
> mode for unrelated files and are confused (this is not hypothetical:
> I've had numerous reports).

Let's remove it from auto-mode-alist, then.

> - Cuts down on "extra noise" in, e.g., the top level Info help.

The IDLWAVE manual can be distributed separately, if that is important.

> Is this really so, in practice?  I have packages in ELPA which are
> effectively untouched except by me, other than on first ingestion.
> And they draw updates from a repo I maintain myself.  Maybe I've
> misconstrued the situation, but my understanding has been that core
> packages receive far more attention from maintainers.  And rightly so,
> IMO: everyone has them installed, after all.
>
> Also, if ELPA and core are truly equivalent, I cannot then understand
> the common strategy of "let it mature on ELPA for a few years, then
> potentially migrate to core."

I don't either.  It's a counterproductive practice that only serves to
give some of us the satisfaction of knowing that ELPA has made itself
useful.

> Because in ELPA, users must proactively opt-in to the use of the
> package.  For such users — those who have actively sought it out — in
> stark contrast to the vast majority of Emacs users, the benefits
> dramatically outweigh the costs.

The other side of this assertion is that users must opt-out of loading
packages in core, and therefore that the entire lisp directory (bar
obsolete) is loaded into every Emacs session at startup, which is
clearly untrue.