Hi Philip,

thanks for answer. 

Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:

> Roman Scherer <roman.scherer@burningswell.com> writes:
>
>> Hello Emacs Developers,
>>
>> I am writing you to ask if we could include the ~plz-media-type~ [1]
>> and the ~plz-event-source~ [2] libraries to GNU ELPA, once Andrew
>> Hyatt and I declare them as releasable.
>
> We can add the libraries to ELPA right now, if you mark the package
> version as something that shouldn't be released.  This appears to be the
> case right now, as the versions end in -pre.  As soon as you change
> this, the packages would be released on ELPA.

Ok, I'm fine with this. Both packages have -pre in their version, and I
made sure there aren't any tags in Git. What would actually trigger
release, a change in the version of the Emacs Lisp file, or a Git tag,
or both?

I also attached two patches for elpa that add the packages. I tried
building them locally and the resulting tarballs look fine to me.

This is the file listing of both of them:

 -rw-rw-r--   roman/roman     30814 plz-media-type-0.1pre0.20240428.92556/plz-media-type.el
 -rw-rw-r--   roman/roman     19238 plz-media-type-0.1pre0.20240428.92556/README-elpa
 -rw-rw-r--   roman/roman       428 plz-media-type-0.1pre0.20240428.92556/plz-media-type-pkg.el
 -rw-rw-r--   roman/roman     19229 plz-media-type-0.1pre0.20240428.92556/README.org
 -rw-rw-r--   roman/roman     19587 plz-media-type-0.1pre0.20240428.92556/plz-media-type.info

 -rw-rw-r--   roman/roman      4821 plz-event-source-0.1pre0.20240428.114418/plz-event-source.info
 -rw-rw-r--   roman/roman      4358 plz-event-source-0.1pre0.20240428.114418/README-elpa
 -rw-rw-r--   roman/roman      5578 plz-event-source-0.1pre0.20240428.114418/README.org
 -rw-rw-r--   roman/roman     18249 plz-event-source-0.1pre0.20240428.114418/plz-event-source.el
 -rw-rw-r--   roman/roman       436 plz-event-source-0.1pre0.20240428.114418/plz-event-source-pkg.el

> The only question I have, from a very superficial understanding, is why
> you don't want to upstream these into the library called "plz" itself?
> Is that unfeasible or did Adam reject the changes?

We were initially considering this, but both packages contain now more
code than Adam would like to add to plz. At least for now, but I guess
we keep it that way. The average plz user might not be interested in all
of the code.

We upstreamed a small change that allows setting a process filter to
plz, which we needed to make it possible to handle the response in a
streaming way.

> Quickly scanning the code made it seem OK, all I would suggest not using
> the README for both the repository README file and the manual.  Also, if
> possible I'd avoid tracking the generated .info file in the repository
> itself.

I removed the generated .info files now from both repositories and
generate them now through the ELPA build process.

I haven't split the README and the manual just yet. It's done in the
same way as in the plz repository. I would actually prefer to have this
also shown on the README.

Why do you suggest splitting them? What are the benefits of it?