Philip Kaludercic writes: > Stefan Monnier writes: > >>>> AFAIK this is sufficiently hypothetical that I'm really not convinced >>>> it's worth the extra work (and the risk of incompatibilities between >>>> the `elpa-admin.el` behavior and that if `package-vc`, e.g. where they >>>> might disagree on which commit is "the" release). >>> >>> I don't know, to me this sounds more like an argument against merging >>> elpa-admin.el and package-vc.el... >> >> It's not about sharing the code here (for which I have lobbied in other >> messages), but about sharing the behavior. >> `elpa-admin.el` de facto defines a "protocol" that upstream maintainers >> have to follow. If `package-vc` doesn't follow the same protocol, >> end-users will suffer unexpected discrepancies. > > That is sort of the question I was implying previously (when mentioning > adding meta data), as to whether or not there is a "protocol" or if the > two format just coincidentally share a part of a common structure. Here is what I had in mind. With the following patch for elpa-admin.git: