From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Packages quality Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2022 12:07:36 -0500 Message-ID: References: <164145738158.2838.5769558384331859964@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20220106082302.0A19CC0DA1E@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <87k0fdmbat.fsf@posteo.net> <87tueh3s2x.fsf@posteo.net> <3c5d2b69-7292-4e15-82e5-9f146979257d@www.fastmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="28188"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: "Emacs Devel" To: "Bozhidar Batsov" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 06 18:09:00 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n5WG3-000797-Sb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 06 Jan 2022 18:09:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36282 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n5WG2-0006Xi-PY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 06 Jan 2022 12:08:58 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:42140) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n5WEy-0004kg-35 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jan 2022 12:07:53 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:7221) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n5WEr-0002q1-FI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jan 2022 12:07:47 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3E35580675; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 12:07:39 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8FCD68065C; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 12:07:37 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1641488857; bh=dItWZpuqSTqZnA7idFCa8ioANKIwJWlQoNyWBCZJjd8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=TrBvCWeGOqU+hPpQkmnDhz/cD1U5BzC0nTPeEZnHKUHcrMVj7rHDpzhUXVQ5Jwqoy 71NbOQNdLfYElxD/Y9dpSuA6FD1NOn/oqZ8qpPmlZPSYLcyDFco4mvTDFo3ce5ienq CYTd6Gu27qTZEcgRW8v2a506kGWbIfv40c/4VSHD0wCO68jjqXu6IRT6uprHsPlLcB Ua55CLmCz/p9xJbisOfyD9gK5R9wlOUGaHzhKEna6Mc+Yk9su9LQEtk7PsL1iLsy6j mqrgdec14P+e6efHPgHca4OWK8RlATnMoUwW5RVxTWCvcy3B9UjkPEzbq0lJO9aXGK S/wVPpWgP0LSQ== Original-Received: from ceviche (unknown [216.154.30.173]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 692D2120302; Thu, 6 Jan 2022 12:07:37 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <3c5d2b69-7292-4e15-82e5-9f146979257d@www.fastmail.com> (Bozhidar Batsov's message of "Thu, 06 Jan 2022 17:03:18 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:284331 Archived-At: > I'm also curious what "redundant package" even means in this context. There > are always many ways to achieve something and usually there's no clear way > to decide if some approach is much better than the alternatives. Given how > early we are with NonGNU ELPA I think that concerns about "obsolete" and > "redundant" packages are quite overdone. I don't consider NonGNU ELPA separately from GNU ELPA in this discussion, and GNU ELPA is just as old as MELPA. What I'm getting at is that users would benefit from extra info about the packages, e.g. notions of popularity and health, some lists of related packages including alternatives. And it'd be good for us to make efforts at consolidating packages (i.e. reach out and help package maintainers integrate their new package with the older one they thought was crap, as happens too often). Stefan > On Thu, Jan 6, 2022, at 4:30 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> > Do we want to collect as many packages as possible, even if the >> > implementations and practices are sub-optimal, are displaced by >> > alternative implementations in Emacs or ELPA, etc. or should we try to >> > restrict the packages to popular, "good citizens" of the Emacs package >> > space, in an effort to raise the standards and clean up "obsolete" and >> > "redundant" packages. It is probably clear that I have an inclination >> > towards the latter position: Going forward it seems preferable to have >> > as many useful and idiomatic packages available directly via the ELPAs, >> > without burdening newcomers with duplicate functionalities. My >> > motivation in contributing to NonGNU ELPA is to further this goal. >> >> Note that (Non)GNU ELPA in the long term will inevitably also contain >> old/redundant/outdated packages unless we go and actively remove such >> packages (which we haven't done so far). >> >> So, I think if we want to improve the quality, in the long term, the way >> to do that is not just by restricting which packages we add, but by >> finding ways to regularly re-assess the quality of packages and coming >> up with good ways to remove/demote packages based on that (and similarly >> promote those packages that are currently particularly good). >> >> >> Stefan >> >> >>