From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Philip Kaludercic Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: package-vc support for :files keyword Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 13:56:23 +0000 Message-ID: <878r92b720.fsf@posteo.net> References: <871qevbhru.fsf@posteo.net> <5f11ccd3-4f04-2f93-6f69-825e0d232944@alphapapa.net> <87ttrqblst.fsf@posteo.net> <01436d9f-d8eb-9708-08cc-dbfd2848b3fc@alphapapa.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="24319"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, tonyzorman@mailbox.org To: Adam Porter Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 19 15:56:57 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qibDk-00063t-7O for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 15:56:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qibDO-0006pt-5n; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 09:56:34 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qibDJ-0006pc-6r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 09:56:29 -0400 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qibDH-0003V1-0D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 09:56:28 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F91B240028 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 15:56:25 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1695131785; bh=L/qq3fgjWw8/JF4eU7xRF3ZADl6mE/NgsNVzRXEEmMg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:From; b=Pvn2fh9iZHqk+l+oPVrec+dwIHlL+6NI9aQLflrijWirzdnW2nib3h/JDBunR4hhP qfxt2jOqIT0CHtWQYuldXlBWUR+wBSr4R337CkBa4XDE/xHqgnZu1jcl4Rm2EQqSjY cMDqd4MyMUQuBTioCoG/tPZ7FqBbnfkUUPwfC42Z4Haku2K3z+cyClEzKvG4b3jAeQ /adPcEjgZ86OaRLG8Ne7jRg9LhBG3tGa7BWeHxkWEbfgq9R8skbx7Xb51ovcrgReiB TvuSbtoW4XUUODHAwKWCkTbDlqrbjaXi2hXCRBHZ4HniAZrhh1VqaL7Vci6H2k9GjK K2vDt5yZnzt9g== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Rqjr86gyyz6tw0; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 15:56:24 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <01436d9f-d8eb-9708-08cc-dbfd2848b3fc@alphapapa.net> (Adam Porter's message of "Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:23:14 -0500") Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; keydata= mDMEZBBQQhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAHJuofBrfqFh12uQu0Yi7mrl525F28eTmwUDflFNmdui0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiWBBMWCAA+FiEEDg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwMFCQHhM4AFCwkI BwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwulikAEA77hloUiSrXgFkUVJhlKBpLCHUjA0 mWZ9j9w5d08+jVwBAK6c4iGP7j+/PhbkxaEKa4V3MzIl7zJkcNNjHCXmvFcEuDgEZBBQQhIKKwYB BAGXVQEFAQEHQI5NLiLRjZy3OfSt1dhCmFyn+fN/QKELUYQetiaoe+MMAwEIB4h+BBgWCAAmFiEE Dg7HY17ghYlni8XN8xYDWXahwukFAmQQUEICGwwFCQHhM4AACgkQ8xYDWXahwukm+wEA8cml4JpK NeAu65rg+auKrPOP6TP/4YWRCTIvuYDm0joBALw98AMz7/qMHvSCeU/hw9PL6u6R2EScxtpKnWof z4oM Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=philipk@posteo.net; helo=mout01.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:310767 Archived-At: Adam Porter writes: > Hi Philip, > > On 9/19/23 03:37, Philip Kaludercic wrote: > >>> Please note out that while `taxy' and `taxy-magit-section' are both >>> developed in "taxy.el.git", they are in separate branches, so there is >>> no need to build the two packages from a single set of files by >>> excluding some files and then the others. >> Oops, I just wrote a quick script that compared URLs but did not >> check >> what :branch they are developed on. >> >>> I've chosen to keep these packages in the same repo because they are >>> so closely related. I'd like to be able to keep this arrangement. >> That is totally fine, would you mind sharing your setup, in case >> someone >> else is interested in this approach as well? > > I'm not sure what you're asking for, but I'll be glad to share. All I > did was create an orphan branch in the same repository and add the > "taxy-magit-section.el" and associated files there, as if it were a > separate repo. What I meant was if you just had multiple, separate checkouts of the same repository or were using something more fancy like git worktrees. >>> Having said that, while I wouldn't personally object to dropping >>> support for building multiple packages from a single branch (since I >>> don't do it myself), I wouldn't favor doing so, because existing >>> packages do, and it would create more work for the authors to have to >>> split them up. >> That is the issue, and I certainly don't want to be the one to blame >> for >> breakage, be it for package developers let alone users. >> >>> Maybe it would be reasonable to make a new policy against building >>> multiple packages from a single branch, while "grandfathering" in the >>> existing packages that do so, if it would solve a problem for ELPA. >> What do you mean by "grandfathering"? > > It's an expression; in this context, it would mean to allow the > packages that already work this way to continue doing so, while > requiring newly submitted packages to only build one package per > branch (or repo, depending on the policy). FWIW I have been bringing this up whenever a package like this was proposed, but usually they refer to existing users on MELPA and then I don't want to bother them any further.