* Re: Naming guidelines for ELPA packages
@ 2023-05-15 1:40 Drew Adams
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Drew Adams @ 2023-05-15 1:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Monnier; +Cc: emacs-devel
> I can go along guidelines to *help* maintainers choose good
> package names. But I think it's very important that we refrain from
> *imposing* it on maintainers.
>
> So if the author prefers to stick with `devil`, then that's what it'll
> be. We have much more important things to worry about when it comes to
> imposing guidelines (e.g. making sure that the package doesn't overstep
> its namespace).
This.
Let users know the rationale behind the guideline,
in particular that it can help people find/discover
their package. The same idea is behind the Elisp
libraries that are part of Emacs (modulo hysterical
raisins etc.)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: devil @ 2023-05-11 5:23 Payas Relekar 2023-05-11 6:33 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Payas Relekar @ 2023-05-11 5:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: Philip Kaludercic, susam.pal, emacs-devel Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > Why use the name "Devil" for this? It doesn't seen to explain anything > about the package's purpose. It is likely to put some people off. Every name is going to put someone or another off, can't really help it. OpenBSD has their daemon and there are already funny anecdotes about it, but it doesn't hurt anyone. > If there is no clear reason why "Devil" is a good name, let's choose > a better name now. As mentioned by Susam in previous mail, as well as the repo README, the name refers both to 'eVil' (extensible Vi Layer) as well as 'God-mode'. The name is distinct, and I like it for what it is. -- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: devil 2023-05-11 5:23 [NonGNU ELPA] New package: devil Payas Relekar @ 2023-05-11 6:33 ` Eli Zaretskii 2023-05-12 16:19 ` Jim Porter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2023-05-11 6:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Payas Relekar; +Cc: rms, philipk, susam.pal, emacs-devel > From: Payas Relekar <relekarpayas@gmail.com> > Cc: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>, susam.pal@gmail.com, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 10:53:15 +0530 > > Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > > > Why use the name "Devil" for this? It doesn't seen to explain anything > > about the package's purpose. It is likely to put some people off. > > Every name is going to put someone or another off, can't really help it. > OpenBSD has their daemon and there are already funny anecdotes about it, > but it doesn't hurt anyone. "daemon" is a term whose meaning in computing context is widely accepted for many years. "Devil' isn't. > > If there is no clear reason why "Devil" is a good name, let's choose > > a better name now. > > As mentioned by Susam in previous mail, as well as the repo README, the > name refers both to 'eVil' (extensible Vi Layer) as well as 'God-mode'. People are extremely unlikely to understand that, even if they know about Evil in Emacs. And even if they do figure out this is related to Evil, the truth is that the package is not meant to be used by users of Evil. > The name is distinct, and I like it for what it is. Please reconsider, I think this name is very unfortunate, because it gives users no clue whatsoever about the package's purpose. Thanks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: devil 2023-05-11 6:33 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2023-05-12 16:19 ` Jim Porter 2023-05-13 22:30 ` Richard Stallman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Jim Porter @ 2023-05-12 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii, Payas Relekar; +Cc: rms, philipk, susam.pal, emacs-devel On 5/10/2023 11:33 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Please reconsider, I think this name is very unfortunate, because it > gives users no clue whatsoever about the package's purpose. How about something like "devil-keys"? That should make it clear that the package has something to do with keys. It doesn't tell exactly what it *does* with those keys, but I think a more-detailed description belongs in the package description or the manual. Within the package itself, I think it would be fine to refer to it as "Devil" (without the "-keys"), since once you're looking at the package in detail, the "keys" hint isn't needed anymore. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: devil 2023-05-12 16:19 ` Jim Porter @ 2023-05-13 22:30 ` Richard Stallman 2023-05-14 4:29 ` Naming guidelines for ELPA packages (was: Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: devil) Jim Porter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2023-05-13 22:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jim Porter; +Cc: eliz, relekarpayas, philipk, susam.pal, emacs-devel [[[ 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. ]]] > How about something like "devil-keys"? That should make it clear that > the package has something to do with keys. It doesn't tell exactly what > it *does* with those keys, but I think a more-detailed description > belongs in the package description or the manual. I like this way of serving both goals at once: a clue about what the job is, and a name to distinguish this package from others for thatjob. -- 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) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Naming guidelines for ELPA packages (was: Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: devil) 2023-05-13 22:30 ` Richard Stallman @ 2023-05-14 4:29 ` Jim Porter 2023-05-14 7:47 ` Naming guidelines for ELPA packages Philip Kaludercic ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Jim Porter @ 2023-05-14 4:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms; +Cc: eliz, relekarpayas, philipk, susam.pal, emacs-devel On 5/13/2023 3:30 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: > [[[ 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. ]]] > > > How about something like "devil-keys"? That should make it clear that > > the package has something to do with keys. It doesn't tell exactly what > > it *does* with those keys, but I think a more-detailed description > > belongs in the package description or the manual. > > I like this way of serving both goals at once: a clue about what the job is, > and a name to distinguish this package from others for thatjob. > Maybe we could turn this into a general guideline, and document it somewhere on GNU ELPA (maybe the README). Something like the below? It could probably use some editorial work, but I thought an example "story" of choosing a package name might help explain things to readers. ---------------------------------------- Naming is hard. To assist package authors, here are some guidelines for choosing good Emacs package names. Package names should be: * Memorable: Aim for short, distinct names that users can easily recall. * Intuitive: Names don't need to fully describe a package, but they should at least provide a hint about what the package does. For example, suppose I've written a package that provides an interface between GObjects and Emacs Lisp, and named it "goeli". This isn't a very good name, since it's not easy to remember (users may find themselves asking, "Wait... was it 'goli' or 'goeli'?"), and it's nearly impossible to guess what it does from the name. After thinking about it some more, I have a flash of insight: I'll call it "goblin" (for _GOb_ject _L_isp _In_terface)! This is easy enough to remember, but it's still not intuitive. Perhaps the best name for a package like this would simply be "gobject". That's both memorable *and* intuitive. However, after thinking about it yet again, I find myself disappointed: while "gobject" is a thoroughly practical name, it's just not very fun. Instead, I finally opt for a compromise: I'll still use "Goblin" when documenting the package and prefix names in my code with "goblin-", but I decide to submit it to GNU ELPA as "goblin-functions". While this isn't as descriptive as "gobject", it does at least provide a hint to the reader that this is a collection of functions (intended for other Lisp authors, as opposed to end users). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Naming guidelines for ELPA packages 2023-05-14 4:29 ` Naming guidelines for ELPA packages (was: Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: devil) Jim Porter @ 2023-05-14 7:47 ` Philip Kaludercic 2023-05-14 19:23 ` Jim Porter 2023-05-14 21:36 ` Stefan Monnier via Emacs development discussions. 2023-05-15 22:15 ` Naming guidelines for ELPA packages (was: Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: devil) Richard Stallman 2 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Philip Kaludercic @ 2023-05-14 7:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jim Porter; +Cc: rms, eliz, relekarpayas, susam.pal, emacs-devel Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com> writes: > On 5/13/2023 3:30 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: >> [[[ 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. ]]] >> > How about something like "devil-keys"? That should make it >> clear that >> > the package has something to do with keys. It doesn't tell exactly what >> > it *does* with those keys, but I think a more-detailed description >> > belongs in the package description or the manual. >> I like this way of serving both goals at once: a clue about what the >> job is, >> and a name to distinguish this package from others for thatjob. >> > > Maybe we could turn this into a general guideline, and document it > somewhere on GNU ELPA (maybe the README). Something like the below? It > could probably use some editorial work, but I thought an example > "story" of choosing a package name might help explain things to > readers. I've suggested something like this in the past, but I can't find my message. Either way, I think this is a good idea that could help avoid a lot of bikeshedding. > ---------------------------------------- > > Naming is hard. To assist package authors, here are some guidelines > for choosing good Emacs package names. Package names should be: > > * Memorable: Aim for short, distinct names that users can easily recall. > * Intuitive: Names don't need to fully describe a package, but they > should at least provide a hint about what the package does. > > For example, suppose I've written a package that provides an interface > between GObjects and Emacs Lisp, and named it "goeli". This isn't a > very good name, since it's not easy to remember (users may find > themselves asking, "Wait... was it 'goli' or 'goeli'?"), and it's > nearly impossible to guess what it does from the name. > > After thinking about it some more, I have a flash of insight: I'll > call it "goblin" (for _GOb_ject _L_isp _In_terface)! This is easy > enough to remember, but it's still not intuitive. > > Perhaps the best name for a package like this would simply be > "gobject". That's both memorable *and* intuitive. > > However, after thinking about it yet again, I find myself > disappointed: while "gobject" is a thoroughly practical name, it's > just not very fun. Instead, I finally opt for a compromise: I'll still > use "Goblin" when documenting the package and prefix names in my code > with "goblin-", but I decide to submit it to GNU ELPA as > "goblin-functions". While this isn't as descriptive as "gobject", it > does at least provide a hint to the reader that this is a collection > of functions (intended for other Lisp authors, as opposed to end > users). I agree with everything up until the last paragraph, but am not convinced that encouraging a "fun name" should be part of the guidelines. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Naming guidelines for ELPA packages 2023-05-14 7:47 ` Naming guidelines for ELPA packages Philip Kaludercic @ 2023-05-14 19:23 ` Jim Porter 2023-05-14 19:33 ` Philip Kaludercic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Jim Porter @ 2023-05-14 19:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Philip Kaludercic; +Cc: rms, eliz, relekarpayas, susam.pal, emacs-devel On 5/14/2023 12:47 AM, Philip Kaludercic wrote: > I agree with everything up until the last paragraph, but am not > convinced that encouraging a "fun name" should be part of the > guidelines. I think I need to adjust the passage a bit to emphasize that the Emacs/ELPA maintainers would *prefer* a simple and straightforward name like "gobject". However, I also think it's important to show how you can come up with a good compromise if you're a package author who just can't let go of your fun package name. In my mind, showing in the documentation how to compromise on this would go a long way towards making package authors not feel like they're being micromanaged. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Naming guidelines for ELPA packages 2023-05-14 19:23 ` Jim Porter @ 2023-05-14 19:33 ` Philip Kaludercic 2023-05-19 3:49 ` Jim Porter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Philip Kaludercic @ 2023-05-14 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jim Porter; +Cc: rms, eliz, relekarpayas, susam.pal, emacs-devel Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com> writes: > On 5/14/2023 12:47 AM, Philip Kaludercic wrote: >> I agree with everything up until the last paragraph, but am not >> convinced that encouraging a "fun name" should be part of the >> guidelines. > > I think I need to adjust the passage a bit to emphasize that the > Emacs/ELPA maintainers would *prefer* a simple and straightforward > name like "gobject". However, I also think it's important to show how > you can come up with a good compromise if you're a package author who > just can't let go of your fun package name. In my mind, showing in the > documentation how to compromise on this would go a long way towards > making package authors not feel like they're being micromanaged. That would sound acceptable to me. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Naming guidelines for ELPA packages 2023-05-14 19:33 ` Philip Kaludercic @ 2023-05-19 3:49 ` Jim Porter 2023-05-19 4:33 ` Akib Azmain Turja 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Jim Porter @ 2023-05-19 3:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Philip Kaludercic; +Cc: rms, eliz, relekarpayas, susam.pal, emacs-devel On 5/14/2023 12:33 PM, Philip Kaludercic wrote: > Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com> writes: > >> I think I need to adjust the passage a bit to emphasize that the >> Emacs/ELPA maintainers would *prefer* a simple and straightforward >> name like "gobject". ... > > That would sound acceptable to me. Ok, how about something like the following? I just expanded it a bit to provide more context and adjusted the wording slightly here and there (for example, these are now "recommendations" instead of "guidelines"). ---------------------------------------- Naming is hard. However, taking some time to choose a good name for your package will help make your package easier to find and to use. To assist package authors, here are some recommendations for choosing good Emacs package names. Package names should be: * Memorable: Aim for short, distinct names that users can easily recall. * Intuitive: Names don't need to fully describe a package, but they should at least provide a hint about what the package does. For example, suppose I've written a package that provides an interface between GObjects and Emacs Lisp, and named it "goeli". This isn't a very good name, since it's not easy to remember (users may find themselves asking, "Wait... was it 'goli' or 'goeli'?"), and it's nearly impossible to guess what it does from the name. After thinking about it some more, I have a flash of insight: I'll call it "goblin" (for _GOb_ject _L_isp _In_terface)! This is easy enough to remember, but it's still not intuitive. Perhaps the best name for a package like this would simply be "gobject". That's both memorable *and* intuitive, not to mention being as straightforward as you can get. If possible, the ELPA maintainers recommend that you choose a name like this. However, suppose that at this point, I find myself disappointed: while "gobject" is a thoroughly practical name, I just don't want to give up the name "goblin". Instead, I could opt for a compromise: I'll still use "Goblin" when documenting the package and prefix names in my code with "goblin-", but I decide to submit it to GNU ELPA as "goblin-gobject". While this isn't as concise as "gobject", it does let the user know right away that this package has something to do with GObjects. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Naming guidelines for ELPA packages 2023-05-19 3:49 ` Jim Porter @ 2023-05-19 4:33 ` Akib Azmain Turja 2023-05-20 16:51 ` Philip Kaludercic 2023-05-21 21:03 ` Richard Stallman 0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Akib Azmain Turja @ 2023-05-19 4:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jim Porter Cc: Philip Kaludercic, rms, eliz, relekarpayas, susam.pal, emacs-devel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2829 bytes --] Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com> writes: > On 5/14/2023 12:33 PM, Philip Kaludercic wrote: >> Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> I think I need to adjust the passage a bit to emphasize that the >>> Emacs/ELPA maintainers would *prefer* a simple and straightforward >>> name like "gobject". ... >> That would sound acceptable to me. > > Ok, how about something like the following? I just expanded it a bit > to provide more context and adjusted the wording slightly here and > there (for example, these are now "recommendations" instead of > "guidelines"). > > ---------------------------------------- > > Naming is hard. However, taking some time to choose a good name for > your package will help make your package easier to find and to use. To > assist package authors, here are some recommendations for choosing > good Emacs package names. Package names should be: > > * Memorable: Aim for short, distinct names that users can easily recall. > * Intuitive: Names don't need to fully describe a package, but they > should at least provide a hint about what the package does. > > For example, suppose I've written a package that provides an interface > between GObjects and Emacs Lisp, and named it "goeli". This isn't a > very good name, since it's not easy to remember (users may find > themselves asking, "Wait... was it 'goli' or 'goeli'?"), and it's > nearly impossible to guess what it does from the name. > > After thinking about it some more, I have a flash of insight: I'll > call it "goblin" (for _GOb_ject _L_isp _In_terface)! This is easy > enough to remember, but it's still not intuitive. > > Perhaps the best name for a package like this would simply be > "gobject". That's both memorable *and* intuitive, not to mention being > as straightforward as you can get. If possible, the ELPA maintainers > recommend that you choose a name like this. > > However, suppose that at this point, I find myself disappointed: while > "gobject" is a thoroughly practical name, I just don't want to give up > the name "goblin". Instead, I could opt for a compromise: I'll still > use "Goblin" when documenting the package and prefix names in my code > with "goblin-", but I decide to submit it to GNU ELPA as > "goblin-gobject". While this isn't as concise as "gobject", it does > let the user know right away that this package has something to do > with GObjects. > The example name you suggested, "gobject", is indeed a good name, but there's a little problem that if someone ever comes up with a better package, it won't find any name for itself. -- Akib Azmain Turja, GPG key: 70018CE5819F17A3BBA666AFE74F0EFA922AE7F5 Fediverse: akib@hostux.social Codeberg: akib emailselfdefense.fsf.org | "Nothing can be secure without encryption." [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Naming guidelines for ELPA packages 2023-05-19 4:33 ` Akib Azmain Turja @ 2023-05-20 16:51 ` Philip Kaludercic 2023-05-21 21:03 ` Richard Stallman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Philip Kaludercic @ 2023-05-20 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Akib Azmain Turja Cc: Jim Porter, rms, eliz, relekarpayas, susam.pal, emacs-devel Akib Azmain Turja <akib@disroot.org> writes: > Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 5/14/2023 12:33 PM, Philip Kaludercic wrote: >>> Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> I think I need to adjust the passage a bit to emphasize that the >>>> Emacs/ELPA maintainers would *prefer* a simple and straightforward >>>> name like "gobject". ... >>> That would sound acceptable to me. >> >> Ok, how about something like the following? I just expanded it a bit >> to provide more context and adjusted the wording slightly here and >> there (for example, these are now "recommendations" instead of >> "guidelines"). >> >> ---------------------------------------- >> >> Naming is hard. However, taking some time to choose a good name for >> your package will help make your package easier to find and to use. To >> assist package authors, here are some recommendations for choosing >> good Emacs package names. Package names should be: >> >> * Memorable: Aim for short, distinct names that users can easily recall. >> * Intuitive: Names don't need to fully describe a package, but they >> should at least provide a hint about what the package does. >> >> For example, suppose I've written a package that provides an interface >> between GObjects and Emacs Lisp, and named it "goeli". This isn't a >> very good name, since it's not easy to remember (users may find >> themselves asking, "Wait... was it 'goli' or 'goeli'?"), and it's >> nearly impossible to guess what it does from the name. >> >> After thinking about it some more, I have a flash of insight: I'll >> call it "goblin" (for _GOb_ject _L_isp _In_terface)! This is easy >> enough to remember, but it's still not intuitive. >> >> Perhaps the best name for a package like this would simply be >> "gobject". That's both memorable *and* intuitive, not to mention being >> as straightforward as you can get. If possible, the ELPA maintainers >> recommend that you choose a name like this. >> >> However, suppose that at this point, I find myself disappointed: while >> "gobject" is a thoroughly practical name, I just don't want to give up >> the name "goblin". Instead, I could opt for a compromise: I'll still >> use "Goblin" when documenting the package and prefix names in my code >> with "goblin-", but I decide to submit it to GNU ELPA as >> "goblin-gobject". While this isn't as concise as "gobject", it does >> let the user know right away that this package has something to do >> with GObjects. >> > > The example name you suggested, "gobject", is indeed a good name, but > there's a little problem that if someone ever comes up with a better > package, it won't find any name for itself. One could argue this would help preventing NIH and encouraging people to contribute to existing projects. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Naming guidelines for ELPA packages 2023-05-19 4:33 ` Akib Azmain Turja 2023-05-20 16:51 ` Philip Kaludercic @ 2023-05-21 21:03 ` Richard Stallman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2023-05-21 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Akib Azmain Turja Cc: jporterbugs, philipk, eliz, relekarpayas, susam.pal, emacs-devel [[[ 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. ]]] > The example name you suggested, "gobject", is indeed a good name, but > there's a little problem that if someone ever comes up with a better > package, it won't find any name for itself. I think there will be no great difficulty. It could be `gobject-2' or `gobj-susan' or many other things that would be somewhat good. So I think Philip's recommendations are good. > One could argue this would help preventing NIH and encouraging people to > contribute to existing projects. If it has a little such effect, that could be beneficial. -- 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) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Naming guidelines for ELPA packages 2023-05-14 4:29 ` Naming guidelines for ELPA packages (was: Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: devil) Jim Porter 2023-05-14 7:47 ` Naming guidelines for ELPA packages Philip Kaludercic @ 2023-05-14 21:36 ` Stefan Monnier via Emacs development discussions. 2023-05-14 22:17 ` Jim Porter 2023-05-15 22:15 ` Naming guidelines for ELPA packages (was: Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: devil) Richard Stallman 2 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Stefan Monnier via Emacs development discussions. @ 2023-05-14 21:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-devel > Naming is hard. To assist package authors, here are some guidelines for > choosing good Emacs package names. Package names should be: > > * Memorable: Aim for short, distinct names that users can easily recall. > * Intuitive: Names don't need to fully describe a package, but they should > at least provide a hint about what the package does. I can go along guidelines to *help* maintainers choose good package names. But I think it's very important that we refrain from *imposing* it on maintainers. So if the author prefers to stick with `devil`, then that's what it'll be. We have much more important things to worry about when it comes to imposing guidelines (e.g. making sure that the package doesn't overstep its namespace). Stefan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Naming guidelines for ELPA packages 2023-05-14 21:36 ` Stefan Monnier via Emacs development discussions. @ 2023-05-14 22:17 ` Jim Porter 2023-05-14 23:00 ` Stefan Monnier 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Jim Porter @ 2023-05-14 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stefan Monnier, emacs-devel On 5/14/2023 2:36 PM, Stefan Monnier via Emacs development discussions. wrote: >> Naming is hard. To assist package authors, here are some guidelines for >> choosing good Emacs package names. Package names should be: >> >> * Memorable: Aim for short, distinct names that users can easily recall. >> * Intuitive: Names don't need to fully describe a package, but they should >> at least provide a hint about what the package does. > > I can go along guidelines to *help* maintainers choose good > package names. But I think it's very important that we refrain from > *imposing* it on maintainers. > > So if the author prefers to stick with `devil`, then that's what it'll > be. We have much more important things to worry about when it comes to > imposing guidelines (e.g. making sure that the package doesn't overstep > its namespace). I agree. This is mainly an attempt to help package maintainers pick good (or "good enough") names on their own so that there's less time spent discussing this issue, and also to be upfront about what the Emacs/ELPA maintainers would prefer. That way, as a package maintainer, you can take these guidelines into account (or not) before you even submit the package. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Naming guidelines for ELPA packages 2023-05-14 22:17 ` Jim Porter @ 2023-05-14 23:00 ` Stefan Monnier 2023-05-15 1:36 ` Jim Porter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Stefan Monnier @ 2023-05-14 23:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jim Porter; +Cc: emacs-devel, Susam Pal > I agree. This is mainly an attempt to help package maintainers pick good (or > "good enough") names on their own so that there's less time spent discussing > this issue, and also to be upfront about what the Emacs/ELPA maintainers > would prefer. That way, as a package maintainer, you can take these > guidelines into account (or not) before you even submit the package. Great. Is there still something that needs to be resolved before we can add this package to NonGNU ELPA, then? [ BTW, I wish this went into GNU ELPA, instead. Oh, and it should have a `.gitignore` along the lines of what I put in the appended patch. ] Stefan diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..af7e30dd09 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitignore @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +/devil-autoloads.el +/devil-pkg.el +*.elc ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Naming guidelines for ELPA packages 2023-05-14 23:00 ` Stefan Monnier @ 2023-05-15 1:36 ` Jim Porter 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Jim Porter @ 2023-05-15 1:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stefan Monnier; +Cc: emacs-devel, Susam Pal On 5/14/2023 4:00 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> I agree. This is mainly an attempt to help package maintainers pick good (or >> "good enough") names on their own so that there's less time spent discussing >> this issue, and also to be upfront about what the Emacs/ELPA maintainers >> would prefer. That way, as a package maintainer, you can take these >> guidelines into account (or not) before you even submit the package. > > Great. Is there still something that needs to be resolved before we can > add this package to NonGNU ELPA, then? In my opinion, no. I only suggested 'devil-keys' as a compromise that could address the concerns people had about the name 'devil' not providing a hint about what the package does. (In this subthread, I mainly wanted to discuss whether we could come up with a general guideline to assist package authors in coming up with reasonably-good names.) But then I'm not exactly an authority figure on what does and doesn't go into ELPA. :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Naming guidelines for ELPA packages (was: Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: devil) 2023-05-14 4:29 ` Naming guidelines for ELPA packages (was: Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: devil) Jim Porter 2023-05-14 7:47 ` Naming guidelines for ELPA packages Philip Kaludercic 2023-05-14 21:36 ` Stefan Monnier via Emacs development discussions. @ 2023-05-15 22:15 ` Richard Stallman 2023-05-16 8:42 ` Naming guidelines for ELPA packages Madhu 2 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2023-05-15 22:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jim Porter; +Cc: eliz, relekarpayas, philipk, susam.pal, emacs-devel [[[ 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. ]]] I think your guideline text is good. It's quite clear, and readable too. But I'm confusd by this subsequent comment: > However, I also think it's important to show how you can > come up with a good compromise if you're a package author who just can't > let go of your fun package name. In my mind, showing in the > documentation how to compromise on this would go a long way towards > making package authors not feel like they're being micromanaged. The last paragraph of your draft text, about goblin-functions, > Instead, I finally opt for a compromise: I'll still use "Goblin" when > documenting the package and prefix names in my code with "goblin-", but > I decide to submit it to GNU ELPA as "goblin-functions". While this > isn't as descriptive as "gobject", it does at least provide a hint to > the reader that this is a collection of functions (intended for other > Lisp authors, as opposed to end users). seems to do that -- so why is a change needed? I think goblin-gobjects might be a superior compromise. -- 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) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Naming guidelines for ELPA packages 2023-05-15 22:15 ` Naming guidelines for ELPA packages (was: Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: devil) Richard Stallman @ 2023-05-16 8:42 ` Madhu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Madhu @ 2023-05-16 8:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-devel * Richard Stallman <E1pygTK-0004et-1U @fencepost.gnu.org> : Wrote on Mon, 15 May 2023 18:15:14 -0400: > The last paragraph of your draft text, about goblin-functions, > > > Instead, I finally opt for a compromise: I'll still use "Goblin" > > when documenting the package and prefix names in my code with > > "goblin-", but I decide to submit it to GNU ELPA as > > "goblin-functions". While this isn't as descriptive as "gobject", > > it does at least provide a hint to the reader that this is a > > collection of functions (intended for other Lisp authors, as > > opposed to end users). > > seems to do that -- so why is a change needed? > > I think goblin-gobjects might be a superior compromise. In case you missed it, goblin-mode was the Oxford Dictionaries word of the year for 2022, in what seems to rigged elections and an exercise of social media engineering https://apnews.com/article/europe-oxford-e1ce91a4c56588c5ece25353cbe52810 LONDON (AP) — Asked to sum up 2022 in a word, the public has chosen a phrase. It defines the term as “a type of behavior which is unapologetically self-indulgent, lazy, slovenly, or greedy, typically in a way that rejects social norms or expectations.” First seen on Twitter in 2009, “goblin mode” gained popularity in 2022 as people around the world emerged uncertainly from pandemic lockdowns. “Given the year we’ve just experienced, ‘goblin mode’ resonates with all of us who are feeling a little overwhelmed at this point,” said Oxford Languages President Casper Grathwohl. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-05-21 21:03 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2023-05-15 1:40 Naming guidelines for ELPA packages Drew Adams -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2023-05-11 5:23 [NonGNU ELPA] New package: devil Payas Relekar 2023-05-11 6:33 ` Eli Zaretskii 2023-05-12 16:19 ` Jim Porter 2023-05-13 22:30 ` Richard Stallman 2023-05-14 4:29 ` Naming guidelines for ELPA packages (was: Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: devil) Jim Porter 2023-05-14 7:47 ` Naming guidelines for ELPA packages Philip Kaludercic 2023-05-14 19:23 ` Jim Porter 2023-05-14 19:33 ` Philip Kaludercic 2023-05-19 3:49 ` Jim Porter 2023-05-19 4:33 ` Akib Azmain Turja 2023-05-20 16:51 ` Philip Kaludercic 2023-05-21 21:03 ` Richard Stallman 2023-05-14 21:36 ` Stefan Monnier via Emacs development discussions. 2023-05-14 22:17 ` Jim Porter 2023-05-14 23:00 ` Stefan Monnier 2023-05-15 1:36 ` Jim Porter 2023-05-15 22:15 ` Naming guidelines for ELPA packages (was: Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: devil) Richard Stallman 2023-05-16 8:42 ` Naming guidelines for ELPA packages Madhu
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).