Re: Moving packages out of core to ELPA

[Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>]

JD Smith <jdtsmith@gmail.com> writes:

> There was a recent discussion about which lisp/progmodes packages
> belong in core.  A sentiment was expressed that useful languages with
> non-negligible user bases should probably go in, and others should be
> in ELPA.
>
> I want to bring up a related point: it should be possible to retire
> packages from core, once their relevance drops below a critical
> threshold [1].

Every instance of this is a mistake.  Why is it so essential that such
packages be removed from core?  What practical advantage does that hold?

A Lisp file is considered part of Emacs, whether it be in core or in
ELPA.  They are expected to meet like standards, and bugs (in the
absence of a maintainer) are the responsibility of the same Emacs
developers who respond to bugs that concern Emacs in general, i.e., like
developers.  The only additional burden the existence of a file in core
implies over being hosted in ELPA is the copyright header update, an
automated process that consumes little time, and whose frequency is not
greater than once a year.

> Judging by my email traffic on the topic, there are very few users of
> IDLWAVE remaining.  Even I touch it only a few times a year.  No one
> has stepped up to maintain it in the 7 years since I stepped aside.
> IDL is still a powerful language and IDLWAVE itself has a great number
> of features I sorely miss in other emacs programming modes.  It
> deserves support in Emacs.  Just not, IMO, in core.

Why not?  Why does _anything_, to speak nothing of a package already in
core, not "deserve" support in core, while deserving support in ELPA?