Re: CVS is the `released version'

[Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com>]

JD Smith <jdsmith@as.arizona.edu> writes:

> On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:46:42 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> I can't see how this would in any way diminuish the FSF's ability to
>> develop Emacs as an FSF-copyrighted package.  At the current point of
>> time, both pulling a (non-standardized) package into Emacs and
>> maintaining it externally is a source of pain. 
>
> Isn't that the point?  That pain may be the motivation to assign
> copyright and move a package into the mainline Emacs distribution.
> Relieving it would lessen that motivation.  On the other hand, the
> pain may simply discourage any development.  It's a fine line to walk.
>
> At the very minimum, an integrated, easy to use capability to update
> assigned, core Emacs packages between releases would be very welcome.

An analogy can be drawn to the Debian apt system.  By default, this
points to the Debian software repositories, but it is trivial to add
third-party repositories to obtain packages that are not included in
Debian for whatever reason (software patent encumbered codecs,
experimental packages, etc.)  The presence of this feature does not
detract from Debian's ability to develop the Debian system.  All
things being equal, users generally use the default Debian package
rather than an equivalent third-party package, if a Debian package
exists; this is simply because the Debian package is better integrated
into the Debian system (just as Lisp packages distributed with Emacs
are better integrated into the rest of Emacs); but it is good to offer
people a choice.