Re: New Package for NonGNU-ELPA: clojure-ts-mode

[Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>]

"Bozhidar Batsov" <bozhidar@batsov.dev> writes:

> Fair enough. Although experience shows that some packages with
> assigned copyright are barely maintained (even in Emacs's core), so
> obviously that's no silver bullet.

How did you come to this perspective?  For both core packages and ELPA
packages there is a lot of activity.  Of course there are stable and
complete packages, where there are only an infrequent need for bug
fixes, but that is a different issue.

> My perspective is simple - don't mess with something that's working
> well. 

Is this still related to the point of suggesting adding packages to
GNU ELPA or the core?  I am a bit disappointed to hear that being seen
as "messing with a workflow", that certainly isn't the intention, just
an offer that would ideally benefit everyone.

>       (e.g. you're getting many occasional contributors on GitHub and
> you want to keep it simple for them)

It is hard to judge, but it seems that there might be some truth to
this.  But this is an unfortunate circumstance, that should be changed,
if you ask me.  At the same time, one should keep in mind that
contributing via GitHub requires an account and a number of
complications, while mailing-lists (either here or via SourceHut) are
open to anyone with an email address -- something I consider to be a
major advantage.

My hope is that this is not an inherent issue of GitHub vs. something
else, and that commands like package-vc-prepare-patch could help make
contributing upstream changes easier for everyone.

> On Sun, Aug 27, 2023, at 9:32 PM, Stefan Kangas wrote:
>> Bozhidar Batsov <bozhidar@batsov.dev writes>:
>> 
>> > I have to say I'm a bit frustrated that every time someone wants
>> > to submit something to NonGNU ELPA there's some push to either
>> > submit to GNU ELPA or core instead.
>> 
>> Some of us believe that assigned packages are often better for the
>> overall health of the project, so we continue to argue for it.  It
>> would be irresponsible not to.