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

[Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>]

Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:

> (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.

Ping?

>>>> 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 siskin