Re: Adding package "Loopy" to Non-GNU Devel?

[Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>]

(Sorry for the late response)

Okamsn <okamsn@protonmail.com> writes:

> Philip Kaludercic wrote:
>> Okamsn <okamsn@protonmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Okamsn wrote:
>>>> Philip Kaludercic wrote:
>>>>> Okamsn <okamsn@protonmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> I keep the extension package in the same GitHub repo as the main package for
>>>>>> testing purposes.  The Dash functionality was requested by a user, but
>>>>>> Dash is
>>>>>> not used by the rest of the package.  Because of that, I put the Dash
>>>>>> functionality in a small separate package.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are talking about the loopy-dash.el file in the same branch, right?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>> If possible, it would be better if you could at least maintain it in a
>>>>> separate branch.
>>>>
>>>> If I added the file "loopy-dash.el" to an ".elpaignore" file in the main
>>>> branch and used GitHub Actions to push any changes from the main branch
>>>> to another branch containing the file "loopy-dash.el", would that be
>>>> acceptable?
>> 
>> Sorry for not answering earlier, this doesn't really solve the issue,
>> since the root issue is that when using package-vc or elpa-admin, you
>> still have two versions of the file in `load-path'.
>> 
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I figured out how to make GitHub automatically copy changes of the file
>>> to another branch when the master branch changes, and have listed the
>>> file `loopy-dash.el` in the `.elpaignore` file on the master branch.
>> 
>> If we were to disregard examples as those mentioned above, then this
>> would be an acceptable solution, but I'd rather not, unless you
>> categorically reject having two separate and disjoint branches.
>
> I would like to keep the development of the packages together, since I 
> still change the implementation details. Having them together makes 
> testing for breakage much easier.

One last idea would be to use worktrees, i.e. basically keep development
in separate branches that are simultaneously checked.

> What if I also had GitHub copy changes into a separate branch that only 
> contained the Loopy package and the documentation files? This would 
> avoid having the two copies of `loopy-dash.el`. Would that work for 
> Package VC?

No, since upon installing loopy as a VC package, you'll still have the
loopy-dash.el file as part of the checked out repository and the
loopy-dash.el provided by the dependency.

>>> I have attached a patch file. Are there any other changes that you would
>>> like made?
>> 
>> I don't think there is anything else (the only thing I can vainly try to
>> bring up is that having a diminutive as the name of a macro is something
>> I find peculiar, and I can imagine would keep a number of other people
>> from using the otherwise nice package, but it seems it is too late for
>> that now?)
>
> I think that it is too late, because it has existed on MELPA for a few 
> years with that name. If it helps, I was not thinking of it as a 
> diminutive, just the normal adjective and the slang usage: 
> https://www.thefreedictionary.com/loopy. I acknowledge that your point 
> probably also applies for the slang definition, but I still like the name.

In that case forget my comment.

-- 
	Philip Kaludercic on peregrine