Re: access to ELPA development packages?

[Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>]

dick <dick.r.chiang@gmail.com> writes:

> You've explained this poorly, and at too esoteric a level of detail.
>
> Donning my anti-flak jacket in preparation for RMS's justifiable indignation
> at my having spoken for his eminence, RMS is more concerned about the public's
> conflation of MELPA with GNU, the former having accrued enough name
> recognition over the years to become metonymous with the emacs community despite
> flouting FSF doctrine.

> The MELPA versioning deficiencies are irksome yes, but in no way deleterious
> to MELPA's popularity or basic function, which is two-fold, to provide a
> package archive unconstrained by FSF doctrine, and to feed our narcissism as
> programmers.  To expand on the latter, more than ninety percent of the
> packages hosted on MELPA are pet projects of dubious practical value.
>
> To those ends, MELPA provides real value, the objections of ideologues notwithstanding.

My issues with MELPA are not ideological. I know that they have non-free
adjacent software and a lot of weird stuff -- and good stuff too -- but
I am really just conceder with MELPA "unstable" being the default
repository a lot of people use.

-- 
	Philip Kaludercic