From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: dash.el [was: Re: Imports / inclusion of s.el into Emacs] Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 22:47:48 +0300 Message-ID: <2f24af64-4b44-9284-8d63-176fa79962fd@yandex.ru> References: <35DBF02E-44D7-41E5-A217-7D6EC84ED221@icloud.com> <4e937898-ae46-710a-cbca-e452a1156fa1@yandex.ru> <405FCFAB-30E4-4F98-81DA-3B09933E86D0@gnu.org> <83367ybe4u.fsf@gnu.org> <83v9ku9x6p.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="120438"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 Cc: rms@gnu.org, joostkremers@fastmail.fm, Emacs-devel@gnu.org, ams@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, pcr910303@icloud.com, phillip.lord@russet.org.uk To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun May 17 21:49:05 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 1jaPHU-000VEo-SI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 17 May 2020 21:49:04 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35814 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jaPHT-000497-UF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 17 May 2020 15:49:03 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49622) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jaPGN-0003CJ-5f for Emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 May 2020 15:47:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wr1-x42e.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::42e]:33240) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jaPGM-0007HQ-90; Sun, 17 May 2020 15:47:54 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-wr1-x42e.google.com with SMTP id l11so9446724wru.0; Sun, 17 May 2020 12:47:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cHkcvLse+i/8+X3VyjSu3Gnn8AFzkDIcAMg4sYY5ukg=; b=buTsbiwia+zRTC5Xrw8+YSF4RfES0CEb2FA8YjXwNADryMSgE3+H1mVwy+hF8KjIJq WdPb6cgucObV04lA0mdollGjOxLTRA7yYabbnYLoDS9SzCWDtkGZOofd+igwCalc40g5 t1CQY3cPBAWm+EboM/KkLVNx9hUQgnqX6aLQ8E3Vgl1e6JjLOxpdDTJ86aXDl2siBoC2 P273blnxUKuL/AAGOdX/Q2/ajTpvRYeszd2JY0Z/1izI+ypuwXKckalFgquFgWeDsqMp MX07GxAZaQRMG+PG9DPzPn7ap2mYtH0584VtNAELYQ27jeYFNV4gIFvcOwKJdHCIihTj D3gA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=cHkcvLse+i/8+X3VyjSu3Gnn8AFzkDIcAMg4sYY5ukg=; b=ZWxM7CUpeDdhxn39A4eUjUmfCLP16AyQR3huTYU3LMK+7SL/jqgEPY1tD3jX+lMs5x I3NKlte3YTgIbBWyVn3LRz29R22z5YgCdRG92fEA4hzT+hVfQmJL2zQbEkXJIRwfKJUy /Gdx7ethU4lVhwtsLKVXiXIURq5c/NN7wONF6HW0NLPHmsHzrqSS0ggr3Qi3+er7XchT 2mpt0LbEF8NEJ3vDhD2YXpuAvKwm7pN9AUKr/aioROJpvn/CsRIgMSJt10s/waWNDWfD YsoDLOWGhGDK9/jE7ei5+UyDJ20i0XlmYVZEr1+JbGB5Y8JGk4Q6B/OqgQvNd1VHP63v T9BA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ZIlE5EyPFcdnLj5gP4cxpSg+6LhLnsfP58Yj24tt9GyucXjes 1PKrE78vcunQ3RDpuVC7RJ8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxUlRwvJjjk4+C4pXinKspHHDnhXYd8oipQHBnZ7rdt4wrFmsYTTvWX3JJRhE8JLXczbw7y4A== X-Received: by 2002:adf:fec9:: with SMTP id q9mr15168413wrs.181.1589744871833; Sun, 17 May 2020 12:47:51 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.0.3] ([66.205.73.129]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id b2sm15209909wrm.30.2020.05.17.12.47.50 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 17 May 2020 12:47:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83v9ku9x6p.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Language: en-US Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::42e; envelope-from=raaahh@gmail.com; helo=mail-wr1-x42e.google.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: No matching host in p0f cache. That's all we know. X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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:250658 Archived-At: On 17.05.2020 22:30, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Dmitry Gutov >> Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 22:21:33 +0300 >> Cc: rms@gnu.org, joostkremers@fastmail.fm, Emacs-devel@gnu.org, ams@gnu.org, >> monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, pcr910303@icloud.com, phillip.lord@russet.org.uk >> >> On 17.05.2020 21:38, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>> What happened here was something completely different. "Here's a new >>> package, it does this and that." -- "Not sure we should have it in >>> core, how about if you put it on ELPA for the time being?" >> >> Yes, we did say that. >> >> And then, we never went back to reconsider, to put any of such packages >> into the core. > > That's not very relevant to the issue at hand. Let's not change the > subject. I don't understand what makes you say that. >> And we never got any complaints about that, either. > > Here I am, complaining. You're not the author of any of these packages. Not an ELPA user either, IIUC. >> So I'm saying it's generally a good thing for most packages, to be put >> into ELPA instead. We didn't explain that outright (which is >> suboptimal), but it seems like most submitters realized this afterward. > > Of course, you'd say that: you think packages should be on ELPA as a > matter of principle. You also think we should take some of what is > already in Emacs and put it on ELPA instead. I wouldn't expect a > balanced opinion from you on this matter. Way to dismiss the arguments without reading. Since your experience with ELPA is basically zero, how are you going to determine what is a balanced opinion, and what isn't?