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