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

> [[PGP Encrypted Part:OK]]
>> Yes, the name I use -elpa- is bad,
>
> Really?  It sounds like a genuinely natural and intuitive choice to me ;-)

So I misunderstood what you explained :-) I meant the branch name.

>> but yes a repository per repo would be great, in github organizations
>> allow having one repo per package like in helm organization.
>
> I know it's more traditional and has its advantages, but currently it's
> not really an option.

I understand it is not possible otherwise I am sure you would go this
way as it is much simpler an safer for everybody.

>> What about ((emacs "24.4")) we don't care of 24.3, we are at 27.2 now so
>> very far from 24.3.
>
> ((emacs "24.4")) would work, yes.  Whether that's better than
> ((emacs "24.3") (nadvice "0.3")) or even ((cl-lib "0.5") (nadvice "0.3"))
> is for the maintainers of Async to decide ;-)

So lets go for ((emacs "24.4")).

>>> - The `async-pkg.el` which is absent on `elpa` and present on `master`.
>>>   Do we actually need it on `master`?
>> IIRC yes, Melpa needs it.
>
> Why would it matter, since it's on GNU ELPA anyway?

As long as I have not a safe configuration for pushing to elpa I want to
keep the melpa configuration i.e. with the pkg.el to be sure users use
the last changes. For now each time I try to push to elpa something bad
happens. Of course not having the need of a special branch for elpa
would simplify.

-- 
Thierry