Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> [[PGP Encrypted Part:OK]]
>> Having one repository per package is how it works everywhere else
>> (Savannah, etc.), and is easier to understand because of that. This is
>> from the point of view of a contributor of course; I cannot speak to how
>> it looks from Stefan's side.
>
> From my side it's plain and simply not an option at all because creating
> a new repository on git.sv.gnu.org requires manual intervention from the
> Savannah admins.  Having had to design a solution that lives within this
> constraint, I'm actually pretty happy about the current result, so if
> the constraint were lifted, I'd probably want to try and preserve
> the advantages.
>
> In any case the `:auto-sync` feature should make it much less of an issue.
>
>> I would be much happier if emms and rt-liberation had their own
>> repositories since it would mean that I couldn't possibly break anything
>> except emms or rt-liberation when I push to those projects in elpa.
>
> The `elpa.git` is configured to reject non-fast-forward pushes, which
> should catch most blunders.  Plus it is cloned at various different
> places which are not all constantly updated, plus (almost) all changes
> to it are reflected in the elpa-diffs mailing-list.  So even if you do
> manage to make some really terrible mistake it should be quite easy to
> recover from it.

Oh that's good and make me more confident, like Yoni I am always afraid
of corrupting the elpa repo.

> You might want to activate the `:auto-sync` on your packages, tho to
> save you from the worry.

Is this documented somewhere?

-- 
Thierry