Re: company.el status?

[Nikolaj Schumacher <me@nschum.de>]

On 2013-03-09 11:05, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
> On 09.03.2013 7:11, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> Much better would be to use the ELPA branch as the official upstream.
> Leaving aside other details, I'd be more comfortable using ELPA for 
> development if it were using Git (this is coming, I hear), and if it 
> didn't lump all packages together in one repository.
> The current situation only seems useful when someone is making 
> sweeping changes across packages, like updating copyright dates. This 
> action seems to be relatively rare, and could be automated either way.
As I indicated, I haven't kept up with development and therefore know 
very little about the current ELPA process.
It always seemed sensible to me to have a (public) development 
repository and then push stable releases upstream.
 From what Dmitry says, it doesn't sound like ELPA works as an easily 
findable and forkable development repository.
> On 09.03.2013 12:19, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Why do we need Github?
I've used it as such a development repository (to mirror my private 
development)
Also, I suppose there should be some kind of project homepage.

I see a certain need for both these things, not for GitHub per se.
> The decision is up to Nikolaj, but for one thing, I expect strong 
> correlation between people who prefer using completion mechanism with 
> graphical interface and ones who would prefer a bug tracker with an 
> actual user interface versus email-driven austerity that is Debbugs.
Actually, I'd like to leave this to you, Dmitry.
Since I'm not going to do much of the development work, I certainly 
don't want to dictate the process. I'll support whatever works best for you.


kind regards,
Nikolaj Schumacher