Re: Fetching or installing package dev source from VCS: manual style

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
  > @node Package from Source
  > @section Package from Source
  > @cindex package development source
  > @cindex package upstream source
  > @cindex package git source @c "git" is not technically correct

That improves the @cindex commands.  But please look at the whole
manual's index and see where these two show up.  If two of them appear
close together, there is no need for both.  If they are separated  by
several other commands, then it is useful to have both.

I used to check the whole index for redundant index entries like this
before each Emacs release.

  > @findex package-vc-install
  >   One way to do this is to use @code{package-vc-install}, to fetch the
  > source code for a package directly from source.

I contend that `package-dev-source' or `package-upstream-source'
is a better name than `package-vc-install'.

They are better because they describe the crucial difference for which
you would use that command: to get the development source rather than
the current release source.  It is true that the development source
will usually come from a VCS, but that's an secondary detail, not the
crucial point.

The current version's source may be stored in a VCS also.  Isn't that
normally the case for NonGNU ELPA?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)