From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: D Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: dw.el Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 19:45:01 +0200 Message-ID: <9388a32f-ddc2-19bf-d11d-b6fe65ce1fdc@posteo.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="16546"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.0 Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 02 19:47:06 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lSNsw-0004BK-3n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2021 19:47:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39798 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lSNsv-0006BW-2w for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2021 13:47:05 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47304) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lSNrA-00055o-89 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2021 13:45:16 -0400 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:58436) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lSNr2-0004rw-42 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2021 13:45:16 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B31216005F for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 19:45:02 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1617385503; bh=IXACvYeqIlrTBCSb5apDdlAhThz2BT8S0IM+fJuSWng=; h=Subject:To:Cc:From:Date:From; b=Vs9iZaPzpj9RvDZ2adcWUAfb/r9Oy29mCSUMdIHRpEksdgKT+gN8jfWr4oimQeHdj h1cZGEX6/cEoZnB6dNx87WbahbFW99odKH8AQ8Tg4dvSb4invqL+agpCFByQr9KN/d el13kKykv+IP9QuPfR/8GXpk5Rsy7BWeq/ArnImrKb46OPaM4VH7DT/U8RiNO27mT7 z3sgqDVWGW94p4HvDcOloIV/hFBxWP+8MqbQdaxgipdLqIVsE9rf0O1NqB45R+vfUP ByPS3PuntHBP5VeFNNdIw0VR10VUenKq1yxMWN5fY2lRW2vxDw7oyela/pkZK4RUBF Yyy2/RTQmC2Qw== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4FBnWL25Rmz6tm9; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 19:45:02 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=d.williams@posteo.net; helo=mout01.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:267307 Archived-At: > Indeed, that's the idea (tho, the packages don't have to be large). > > If a package can be added to GNU ELPA instead of NonGNU ELPA, then it is > very much preferable. I've been thinking about this for a bit, and was wondering about two things regarding nongnu ELPA in this case (This is more off-topic/more general, so I'm not sure if I should take this particular train of thought to emacs-tangents/change the subject line). On the one hand, if that's the intent, wouldn't it be best to have that intent reflected in nongnu ELPA's README in some way? Because while I was vaguely aware of this because I knew of the ML thread, to an outside observer NonGNU may come off as a built-in package archive more conceptually adjacent to MELPA. On the other hand, while nongnu primarily seeks out (we could say high-profile) packages that can't be added to ELPA (yet), doesn't have the existence of nongnu immense potential as it lowers the perceived barrier of entry for package developers? If tapped, it could greatly incentivize the "primary targets" (network effect).