Merging feature/package+vc

[Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>]

Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:

> A more forwards-compatible file format would be defined that would
> uncouple the format used by elpa-admin.el and package-vc.el the more I
> think about this, the more I think it is better to take this path
> instead of sharing code between the two.  Sure, this means that some
> things have to be duplicated, but we are talking about two different
> scenarios (activating source controlled code and packaging tarballs)
> that might have a lot in common but still ought to be considered
> separately.

Unless I have forgotten anything, this should be the last issue
remaining to be decided before the branch can be merged.  It also seems
there were no objections to the current state of the branch as explained
in <87bkqmqpvb.fsf@posteo.net>.

The only other point I can recall, though I wouldn't call it an issue,
is the name of `package-vc-install'.  As I've previously argued, I like
the symmetry to `package-install', but it might make sense to add an
alias.  Previously there was an alias named `package-checkout', but I
decided to remove it because I wasn't satisfied with the choice, but
perhaps something like `package-checkout-sources' or
`package-fetch-sources' could help discoverability/intuition?