Re: Adding major or popular language modes to Emacs distribution

[Arthur Miller <arthur.miller@live.com>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
>> Cc: hi@ypei.me,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2021 14:30:16 +0000
>> 
>> > We should definitely make the PL modes more consistent wrt the basic
>> > key bindings.  But having sch packages in ELPA doesn't help solving
>> > this problem, because it's an orthogonal issue, right?
>> 
>> Yes, I was jut mentioning that if there ever were a push to include more
>> major modes in Emacs, that something like this might be worth
>> considering.
>
> To clarify, I was only talking about programming languages that are
> very popular -- I think Emacs should offer those OOTB.  I didn't mean
> we should necessarily have in core every possible language under the
> sun.  We could discuss the less popular ones on a case by case basis.

What I was thinking of is that some of prog modes that ship with Emacs are
frankly not very good compared to external packages, and people are anyway
downloading something else (for exapel js vs js2 or lisp vs slime/sly). It would
be nice if everything was in Emacs by default but, maybe it is better to lessen
the burden on Emacs devs themselves and point users to external package instead.

Now that we have non gnu elpa, and Stefan says it is no problem to ship someone
elses packages, maybe some good soul could package those into non gnu elpa and
Emacs could do like some other text editors, simply point users to download
needed package or download it on demand?

There was no non gnu elpa before, maybe you could revise the policy in that
light?

After this sotrom about Git and workflow has blow away of course :).