From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Joost Kremers Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Adding advisory notification for non-ELPA package.el downloads Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:43:12 +0200 Message-ID: <87h8yk6n1b.fsf@phil.uni-goettingen.de> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1499719415 29018 195.159.176.226 (10 Jul 2017 20:43:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 20:43:35 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: mu4e 0.9.19; emacs 25.2.50.1 Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?utf-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit-Claudel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 10 22:43:31 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dUfWh-00079f-4X for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:43:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42968 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dUfWm-0000hw-Li for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:43:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34049) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dUfWe-0000hc-C8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:43:25 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dUfWa-0002kN-CT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:43:24 -0400 Original-Received: from xmailer.gwdg.de ([134.76.10.29]:43589) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dUfWa-0002jX-4l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:43:20 -0400 Original-Received: from [134.76.11.222] (helo=email.gwdg.de) by mailer.gwdg.de with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1dUfWU-0007gq-5c; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:43:14 +0200 Original-Received: from IdeaPad.gwdg.de (78.51.99.112) by email.gwdg.de (134.76.9.211) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:43:13 +0200 In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: (clean) by clamav X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 134.76.10.29 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:216441 Archived-At: On Sat, Jul 08 2017, Clément Pit-Claudel wrote: > On 2017-07-07 21:59, John Wiegley wrote: >> I have a feeling that a lot of package authors choose MELPA >> because >> the barrier to entry is so low, and they may not realize how >> easy it >> is to get it into Emacs as well. > > It's not that they doesn't realize how easy it is: it's that > it's not easy. > > Getting into MELPA requires a writing a one-line Lisp form and > submitting it for inclusion. Getting into ELPA requires subtle > git invocations that end up mashing up the history of your > project with that of tens of others, while fearing to break the > entire ELPA repo because of a missing copyright line in a test > file. > > And ELPA makes maintaining the package more painful, too: > picking out the commits made by others and copying them on your > personal repo requires further arcane git invocations — same for > importing new commits from your personal repo. And of course you > lose other MELPA goodies, like getting download statistics. > > For now, the main motivation to publish on ELPA is ideological — > not practical. My feeling is that package authors chose not to > publish on ELPA because they get all they need from MELPA, for a > fraction of the invested time. Let me just say 'hear, hear' to that, as one of those typical package maintainers. I thought about using ELPA instead of MELPA a few times, but reading such comments as "arcane git commands", "mashing up your history" and "breaking the entire ELPA repo", my immediate reaction is "oh well, some other time, perhaps". I should probably point out that my git skill level is low, and while I'd be willing to learn more, the time investment if often prohibitive. (I'm not a professional programmer, just a guy with a hobby.) With MELPA, that's sufficient, though, and Github has a lot of help pages that provide clear and concise instructions for things I don't do every day, such as dealing with PRs or keeping a fork up-to-date with its upstream repo. I've just been skimming the GNU ELPA README on http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/elpa.git/plain/README and although it *looks* like once thing's are set up, I shouldn't have to do much more than a git push to update my package, the process of getting there seems quite involved. More importantly perhaps, the entire workflow seems to be different. With MELPA, I put my code in a publicly accessible repo that I create myself, on a service of my own choosing (in my case Github), and then tell MELPA where to look for it. With GNU ELPA, it seems I need to put my code somewhere specific, and it's not in a repo that I create or own. In itself, it's not a big problem that GNU ELPA uses a different workflow from MELPA, but, speaking for myself, it would be good if the ELPA README (or some other document) would contain a few paragraphs explaining the differences and would cover the steps involved in such a way that they make sense for someone with a less-than-stellar understanding of git. Anyway, just my two €0.02. -- Joost Kremers Life has its moments