On 14 October 2017 at 11:36, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: Reuben Thomas <rrt@sc3d.org>
> > Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 09:29:52 +0100
> > Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>,
> >       Noam Postavsky <npostavs@users.sourceforge.net>, Sami Kerola <
> kerolasa@iki.fi>, emacs-devel@gnu.org,
> >       João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com>,
> >       Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>, Leo Liu <sdl.web@gmail.com>,
> >       Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> >
> >  "...I'd rather let Flycheck die if no maintainer was left to work on it
> than moving it into Emacs..."
> >
> > ​It doesn't have to be moved, just as Org was not moved into Emacs, but
> continues to be maintained
> > externally, and its sources imported.
>
> You mean, import Flycheck over its developer's objections?


​Its developer seems to object to its becoming part of Emacs; I'm not
suggesting that.​

It's the developer's legitimate
> ​ ​
> right not to allow it.


(It's released under GPLv3+, so the developer can't disallow it. But it
doesn't matter here, and maintaining good relations with upstream is of
course important.)​

And even if we did, how will this work once
> bug reports will come in, and we will expect/request the Flycheck
> developers to handle them?
>

​As for any other external package (and with other packages such as Org and
CEDET), bug reports should go to the package developers.

-- 
https://rrt.sc3d.org