On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 01:20, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com>
> > Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 10:21:47 +1000
> > Cc: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>, Emacs developers <
> Emacs-devel@gnu.org>
> >
> >  Aren't these questions answered in ELPA's README?
> >
> > No it doesn't. It does answer some of them, but not others (and is
> probably not
> > the right place to answer some of them).
> >
> > The ELPA README is certainly a start with respect to basic workflow.
> Information
> > which it lacks that a new developer may want to know or which needs
> > clarification includes
> >
> > - Who can get push permission to the ELPA git repository?
> > - How do you request push permission?
> > - The README is a little weak on process when you don't have push
> permission
> > - The instructions re: email to emacs-devel for package developers who
> do not
> >   have push permission does not indicate how to provide the package
> >   sources/updates. It says that someone will push it for you, but if you
> >   don't have push permission to the git repo, how do you get your code
> in there
> >   to begin with?
>
> So basically what's missing is the write access issue.  That should be
> a single sentence: we don't have ELPA write access, only access to the
> entire Emacs repository, so they need to request membership in the
> Emacs project.
>

That would certainly be a good start. However, is that a maintainable
approach.

Assume we are successful in getting more packages into ELPA, increasing the
discoverability of appropriate packages without the need to add
repositories like MELPA. Will all of those developers be entitled to write
access to the GNU git repository? What about Richard's proposed
non-copyrighted repository? Perhaps now is the right time to look at the
architecture and consider breaking off ELPA into a separate authentication
realm?

>
> > Questions about what can/should go into ELPA, what should be included in
> Emacs
> > core and what cannot go into ELPA are not addressed at all (the README is
> > probably not the right place for this information)
>
> It's quite expected that this is not described, because we are still
> arguing about that.
>

I think this is an important argument to resolve in order to address the
other issues that have been raised, such as improving package
discoverability or implementation of a non-copyrights assigned repository.
ELPA has existed for quite some time now and we still don't have a clear
definition of what should go into it. How long do we need to argue about it
before making a decision? Is anything being recorded regarding the various
arguments or is it just endless unconnected threads in the mail list? In
other words, how far have we moved towards a consensus?

-- 
regards,

Tim

--
Tim Cross