Makes perfect sense. Thanks for the response! 

I've only used (NonGNU) ELPA with remote upstreams, that's why I wasn't sure for whom
exactly does this conversation apply. 

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021, at 10:21 AM, Phil Sainty wrote:
> On 2021-08-18 18:41, Bozhidar Batsov wrote:
> > I'm a bit confused by the conversation so far. Can someone elaborate
> > on "maintainers have explicitly pushed their tags to the ELPA repo"?
> > I do tag all the releases of my packages, as that's a common (and
> > good) practice, but I don't understand why would something like this
> > be affecting ELPA negatively.
> 
> It won't.  Not unless you went out of your way to make it a problem.
> 
> Your "single project repository" is not the ELPA repo.  The ELPA repo
> contains all of the packages in that archive.
> 
> This whole discussion only applies if you are manually pushing code
> changes to the ELPA repo.  If your package is defined as an external
> repo for ELPA's build processes to fetch automatically, then you aren't
> pushing *anything* to the ELPA repo at all.
> 
> 
> > Does it sync the tags from the remotes or what?
> 
> No, it doesn't, so tags can't be a problem if ELPA is fetching the
> updates itself.
> 
> 
> > In general I don't think that something like "stop tagging your
> > releases upstream" is a good solution.
> 
> Keep tagging to your heart's content in your own repository.  Just
> don't push those tags to the ELPA repo (which you would need to do
> explicitly with options to the "git push" command).
> 
> 
> > Adding a prefix to the tag name (e.g. the package name) also seems
> > weird in the context of a single project repository.
> 
> Again, this was purely in the context of the multi-project ELPA repo.
> If someone particularly wanted tags in the ELPA repo for a package,
> then the tags would need to be namespaced with a prefix in order to
> avoid potential clashes.
> 
> 
> -Phil
> 
> 
>