Re: A new, "org-bullets"-like minor mode

[D <d.williams@posteo.net>]

> I haven't looked at the code yet but would it make sense for your new
> mode just being renamed to "org-bullet" instead? Do you expect that
> some current users won't want to update?

I have been considering that, but decided against replacing org-bullets
(or calling the package something akin to org-bullets+) for two reasons:
1) For the things I have/had in mind I would not have wanted to ensure
backwards-compatibility.

I would hate to see long-time users of org-bullets to experience
breakage because of design decisions I made.  I think that there is a
lot of value in keeping a straightforward package with a singular goal
for people that want exactly that.  While I made sure to ease the pain
of transitioning for people interested, I would not want to touch it
beyond maintenance.  From what I know, spacemacs ships with it for
example, so I would not like to cause anything downstream without warning.

2) While there are perfectly valid reasons to name a package similar to
another ("xpackage", "packagex", "package+", "pakG", ...) I personally
shy away from the practice to avoid confusion.  LaTeX packages are
notorious for this, and their overuse of this convention has led to many
frustrating afternoons for me in the past years.

> If you want to stick with creating a new mode, are there any bug fixes
> that you could backport to "org-bullet"?

I am sincerely considering to help maintain the project, to "adopt" it
from the orphanage, should org-superstar gain any popularity.  I will
gladly port anything technical (bugfixes, plausible performance patches)
I can to org-bullets if requested, but I would not add features.
However, I hesitate to immediately pick up the role of maintaining
org-bullets for the simple reason that I'd first like to have a project
of my own to show for myself, as a proof of responsibility if you will.

> I don't actually use it myself and just enable it temporarily if someone
> reports a bug or something.  It's not that I am not interested in
> something like this package, but from the sound of it I would rather use
> your package than the old "org-bullet".

If you find the time to check out my package, I am always open for
criticism and suggestions.  Seeing how young the package is I am very
open to adding features and making quality of life improvements to the
interfaces.

> If I remember correctly it, then it took some effort to contact sabof,
> but eventually they gave their blessing.

I sent sabof a mail via the Github address, if you have any means of
communication with him, would you mind sharing them?