From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: CVS is the `released version' Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 04:30:37 -0400 Message-ID: References: <2cd46e7f0705101124r72000f78xdf05d18ca815ca57@mail.gmail.com> <17991.47259.210100.801472@localhost.localdomain> <86646mjvxp.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1179822721 18410 80.91.229.12 (22 May 2007 08:32:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 08:32:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: tromey@redhat.com, joakim@verona.se, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 22 10:31:59 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HqPmd-0000hD-NJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 May 2007 10:31:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HqPmd-0003BM-Bd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 May 2007 04:31:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HqPlT-00026P-Q1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 May 2007 04:30:43 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HqPlS-00025x-Vn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 May 2007 04:30:43 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HqPlS-00025p-Pd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 May 2007 04:30:42 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HqPlS-0006Ax-Eb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 May 2007 04:30:42 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HqPlN-0001gu-2t; Tue, 22 May 2007 04:30:37 -0400 In-reply-to: <86646mjvxp.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> (message from David Kastrup on Mon, 21 May 2007 12:46:42 +0200) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:71584 Archived-At: I don't think this is a fair characterization. The idea is not, as far as I can tell, to reduce the motivation for contributing material into Emacs' core. It is to provide a mechanism to work with things that have no real place in the Emacs core. When we all agree on which class a given package is in, there would probably be no problem. My concern is with the cases where there is disagreement -- such as VM. In addition, if done right, it could make it _easier_ to pull material into Emacs' core: right now there are no hard rules for what a Emacs package (a conglomerate of Lisp files, auxiliary files, documentation and other stuff) should look like when wanting to get moved into Emacs. Yes there are. Look at the Tips appendix. The guidelines are quite thorough. I don't see where having a package system could possibly help. (I don't think it would hurt, either.) The main obstacle in getting new libraries into Emacs is that of making them modular, making them follow the conventions of Emacs, and sometimes cleaning up the code. I just don't see how a package system with its own repository(s) would change anything.