>>>> Could you perhaps elaborate on why you consider this to be a bug?
>>>
>>> To be clear I meant that it's a bug in the remote package.
>>
>> Perhaps I am being pedantic, but this sounds like a mistake, not a /bug/
>> in the code itself.
>
> I meant that I considered it a software defect in the packaging process.
> It might have been more accurate to term it a bug in the remote
> package's packaging process.  In any case, the implication wasn't that
> it was a bug in the remote package's source code.  I hope it's clearer
> now.

No worries, I think we both understand what we mean.

>>> Specifically, in the case of julia-mode, it was a bug for it to have
>>> introduced the 0.4 package header in a commit that was different from
>>> the one that was tagged as 0.4.
>>
>> Do you know which of the two is correct?  In cases like these, it sounds
>> like one should contact the maintainers to remind them that they
>> shouldn't repeat the same issue in the future.
>
> Given that the change that was added between the commit that updated the
> package header and the commit that corresponded to the git tag was a
> fairly important bug-fix, I believe the intended revision (for 0.4) was
> the one corresponding to the git tag (i.e., the more recent commit and
> the one available via melpa-stable).
>
> In general, for packages with a git repository that have a presence
> outside of GNU and NonGNU ELPA, I believe the version corresponding to
> the "git tag" to be more closely aligned with the maintainer's intent.
>
> That being said, however, based on a recent exchange, the recommended
> version that the maintainer of julia-mode wishes users download is the
> "rolling release" equivalent from melpa.  I believe it is for this
> reason that they have not made a tagged release in the last four years.
> Quoting below the maintainer's response on the issue ([1]) where I
> brought this matter to their attention:
>
> #+begin_quote
>   Since we do not make stable releases (effectively, it is just rolling on
>   `master`, I think we should just clarify that users should use `melpa`, and if
>   possible expunge the package from `melpa-stable` etc.
> #+end_quote
>
> [1]: <https://github.com/JuliaEditorSupport/julia-emacs/issues/212#issuecomment-2328150198>

If that is so, then we can also mark the ELPA package as using a
rolling-release model, i.e. the build server prepares a new tarball
every time is synchronises new commits.

-- 
	Philip Kaludercic on siskin