From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: dash.el [was: Re: Imports / inclusion of s.el into Emacs] Date: Sat, 09 May 2020 10:11:00 -0400 Message-ID: References: <0c88192c-3c33-46ed-95cb-b4c6928016e3@default> <87wo5mc04t.fsf@fastmail.fm> <835zd5h6tq.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="28620"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: joostkremers@fastmail.fm, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat May 09 16:11:58 2020 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 1jXQCs-0007Mv-Mc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 09 May 2020 16:11:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55200 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXQCr-00005a-98 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 09 May 2020 10:11:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56120) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXQC3-0007r8-GY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 May 2020 10:11:07 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:56934) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXQC2-0001PQ-02; Sat, 09 May 2020 10:11:06 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 19717450B0E; Sat, 9 May 2020 10:11:04 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8F283450909; Sat, 9 May 2020 10:11:02 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1589033462; bh=0PqW70VEV7NbHqKYPx5tY08tTUHtJXwHVQUEF3FXvYg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=f1mYXbjcehVoZwOq92/guH54nR5VIuVu7ia2DZ0wom/4p2uh0TrT6i8h7l4icDQqR aKK2ZMut/8iat0ueEQWTXruNIB2gsilZgped4Hi5GSVokfqLIX8mdJdqwVNwxQeqJf d5exvP/djKTAMGaWnavf3sEn5jsGSwz0FoasyS/nncKAXkqsWHqDMxnb1DWM2VYa4l A5ldaau0wJqPF1cbOF7Y9i6E3C1CzkyqEwN3ETFpCGRuEK0vYeO0tIdKhYg1aUZXtB /dp55V9eGqAyHhkVT6go92WND2/Q3O7t7SR+WJl4afjWQjJGgy5XgS7AnETd2kPvpW oqafvrKbjJAsg== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.3.202]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0F9FB1203CD; Sat, 9 May 2020 10:11:01 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <835zd5h6tq.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 09 May 2020 11:05:05 +0300") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/09 09:45:08 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] 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_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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:249440 Archived-At: > Are you saying that popularity and similarity of a package is the only > criterion we should apply when deciding whether to add a package to > ELPA? Eli, I think you need to go take a look at the packages we have in GNU ELPA. Some are really good packages which we could or even should distribute with Emacs. Others are technically far from that bar. Some are very popular. Some are not popular at all. My criterion for inclusion so far has mostly been: - the maintainer is willing to include it into GNU ELPA. - the technical obstacles are cleared (format of the package compatible with GNU ELPA, copyright paperwork, ...). - it's sufficiently harmless in the sense that just having it *installed* won't unduly affect the user. I see no benefit to adding any other obstacle, really. Actual quality control is imposed for inclusion into Emacs, not GNU ELPA. > IOW, are you saying that the technical details of the package's > implementation should not matter, for fear of sending the wrong > message? Pretty much, yes. Not just "for fear", but because we do want to encourage people to share their code (which can always be improved if necessary). Stefan