Re: GNU ELPA package discoverability

[Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4881 bytes --]

On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 12:40, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com>
> > Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 11:06:37 +1000
> > Cc: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>, Emacs developers <
> Emacs-devel@gnu.org>
> >
> >  > That would certainly be a good start. However, is that a maintainable
> approach.
> >
> >  That's what we have now.  IMO information for contributors should
> >  reflect the present state of affairs.
> >
> > Except it isn't. There is nothing in the README about how to obtain
> write/push rights to the repository or that
> > it is the same rights as you need to add code to the Emacs repository.
>
> Which I agreed should be added.  What is your point in reiterating
> that?
>

I apologise - I thought you were talking about what is in the README as in
the process is documented.

>
> The above was in response to a different argument: that describing how
> to get write access now is in your opinion not TRT, because that might
> change in the future.  Let's keep the argument going forward, not
> backward or in circles, please.
>

I wasn't saying that it wasn't the right thing or way to do it, merely
asking if it is a maintainable approach.

>
> >  If and when the situation changes, we will update the information.  It
> >  is not useful to worry about issues that didn't yet materialize, and
> >  are anybody's guess when they will.
> >
> > I disagree with this approach. All it does is maintain the status quo.
>
> It's okay to disagree.  Status quo is what needs to be described,
> because documentation needs to be accurate.
>

Yes, understanding the current status quo is important, but not necessarily
just for documentation purposes. The high level objective is to make ELPA a
more comprehensive repository of elisp packages that satisfy GNU project
goals and objectives, enabling easier discovery of said packages without
needing to add 3rd party repositories that may include packages which do
not further the GNU project's goals. Much of what I wrote regarding the
lack of documentation was about how this lack of documentation is an
impediment to developers wanting to add packages to ELPA. Documentation is
only part of the story.

>
> > As demonstrated by this thread and others, the current situation is not
> working. GNU ELPA has relatively few
> > packages.
>
> Because the procedure to get write access is not described?
>

No, this lack of information was simply one example of one aspect of
factors which discourage developers from submitting packages for inclusion
in ELPA. It was mentioned in response to a comment that said the
information developers needed was in the ELPA README file and I listed it
as an example of how the README failed to answer the sort of questions a
developer may have when trying to decide whether to publish a package in
ELPA or some other repository, like MELPA.

>
> > To make it maintainable, we need to design a solution which minimises
> the time burden on those
> > few volunteers prepared to put in the effort. Improvements and change is
> something which needs to be
> > driven.
>
> Talking about what "we need" to do doesn't get anything done,
> unfortunately.  Frankly, that's my summary of everything you wrote on
> the subject till now.  It helps nothing to lecture what needs to be
> done when no one is doing it.
>

Well then I think your summary is poor. I have made suggestions and offered
to do things to try and move matters forward and received no response.

As I wrote on the 25th may -

I'm willing to try and assist here if possible. As a starting point, would
> it be worthwhile starting some discussion threads in emacs-devel for each
> question. I could then try and collate the responses into a single document
> which could be a starting point. For example, I would probably start with
> the question "What criteria should we use to determine if a module,
> library, feature etc go into GNU Emacs core, or GNU ELPA?
> What do others think? I could also have a thread asking for questions
> which should be answered or things which should be documented with respect
> to ELPA.



> >  I don't know.  A proposal was put on the table, but some of the
> >  important stakeholders didn't yet respond to it.
> >
> > How long ago? Perhaps that proposal needs to be res erected? Any
> proposal which is just thrown out into
> > the ether is rarely going to achieve anything. It usually needs a
> champion that will drive the proposal until an
> > eventual resolution (which may be for or against - either are valid and
> provide a means to move forward).
> >
> > Do you have a copy of this proposal and are you able to share it?
>
> It's all in the archives, please look there.  It wasn't long ago, just
> a couple of weeks, so it should be no problem to look it up.
>

I will try to find it. Any clue as to the subject line?

-- 
regards,

Tim

--
Tim Cross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6879 bytes --]