Re: Packages quality

[Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> Do we want to collect as many packages as possible, even if the
>> implementations and practices are sub-optimal, are displaced by
>> alternative implementations in Emacs or ELPA, etc. or should we try to
>> restrict the packages to popular, "good citizens" of the Emacs package
>> space, in an effort to raise the standards and clean up "obsolete" and
>> "redundant" packages.  It is probably clear that I have an inclination
>> towards the latter position: Going forward it seems preferable to have
>> as many useful and idiomatic packages available directly via the ELPAs,
>> without burdening newcomers with duplicate functionalities.  My
>> motivation in contributing to NonGNU ELPA is to further this goal.
>
> Note that (Non)GNU ELPA in the long term will inevitably also contain
> old/redundant/outdated packages unless we go and actively remove such
> packages (which we haven't done so far).

Of course, but this seems to be a separate issue.  Thinking about if a
package is already deprecated or could be improved now is a different
consideration than the (still real) issue of maintaining and preserving
this for future releases.

> So, I think if we want to improve the quality, in the long term, the way
> to do that is not just by restricting which packages we add, but by
> finding ways to regularly re-assess the quality of packages and coming
> up with good ways to remove/demote packages based on that (and similarly
> promote those packages that are currently particularly good).

What do you mean by promote/demote packages?  Something like a
"featured" section in GNOME Software
(https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Software)?

>
>         Stefan
>

-- 
	Philip Kaludercic