Re: ELPA contributions?

[Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>]

Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:

> Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> All I ever do is "remote add, subtree add, subtree pull" to add a new
>> package; or just subtree pull to update a package. This is pretty much
>> what you're doing, except I don't fetch nor squash. 
>>
>> When someone edits a package on the elpa repo, I just copy the changes
>> over to my remote (no git commands). It's just simpler this way. 
>>
>> All of this should really be better explained on the readme. I
>> remember I felt a little lost the first time I was doing it. If anyone
>> would like to document these steps a bit better I would be thoroughly
>> grateful. 
>
> I really regret squashing: I think I only did it because of some vague
> sense that it would be more hygienic. Fairly nonsensical, but I don't
> think it's possible, or practical, to unsquash at this point. For the
> sake of simplicity, I think it would be good if the README recommends
> not squashing.

Also, Stefan's original recommendation was to just develop the package
in ELPA: no remote.

I think this could be a more viable option if debbugs integrated with
ELPA a bit better. Personally, I wanted Github a tiny bit for the fame
and the glory, but mostly because of the issue tracking. Other people
probably make more use of Github's functionality (Phil mentioned pull
requests, etc), but in my case, if I got an automatic email anytime
anyone reported an Emacs bug with "gnorb" in the package header...

Hang on, back up. If `report-emacs-bug' prompted the user for a package
(with completion), and then I was automatically emailed with any bug
reports filed against my package(s) (where I'm in the Maintainer
header), and then I could continue that back-and-forth via debbugs, most
of the allure of Github would be gone for me, and I'd probably just do
the development within ELPA.

More than 2 cents by now,

Eric