From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Nic Ferrier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: package and testing rant (was Re: package.el, auto-installation, and auto-removal) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 23:01:04 +0000 Message-ID: <87bnocgh1r.fsf@ferrier.me.uk> References: <87a943umku.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87ppcvm7fj.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk> <87vbmndk46.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87wq72ls2h.fsf@ferrier.me.uk> <87k332lnn3.fsf_-_@ferrier.me.uk> <878ujhtx89.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <8761eki9ym.fsf@ferrier.me.uk> <87sihogkt0.fsf@ferrier.me.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1415833299 18146 80.91.229.3 (12 Nov 2014 23:01:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 23:01:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Achim Gratz , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 13 00:01:32 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Xoguo-0003TQ-2p for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 00:01:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57124 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xogun-0004iN-Og for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 18:01:29 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34497) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XoguW-0004hq-7H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 18:01:18 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XoguQ-0007dc-5w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 18:01:12 -0500 Original-Received: from static.17.66.46.78.clients.your-server.de ([78.46.66.17]:56252 helo=po1.ferrier.me.uk) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XoguP-0007dQ-Vh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 18:01:06 -0500 Original-Received: from nicferrier-dell-xps (140.35.155.90.in-addr.arpa [90.155.35.140]) by po1.ferrier.me.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C7B5FAC00E2; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 00:19:31 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from nicferrier-XPS13-9333 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nicferrier-dell-xps (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E8056BA00; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 23:01:04 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Wed, 12 Nov 2014 17:40:34 -0500") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 78.46.66.17 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:176854 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: > No: many (most?) savannah gnu projects don't require copyright > assignments. Also, when maintainers disappear, it's rather > problematic to get bugs fixed. A GNU project is a GNU project, is my understanding. savannah can host non-gnu or GNU. GNU projects all need (C) assignment. You can't be GNU without that. Maybe that changed? But that's the way I recall it from when savannah was setup and I was involved with the Java stuff. I don't see why it's any more easy to get bugs fixed. If a maintainer for a GNU project disappears there's a regular course of action to chase them up or hand off control. Isn't there? There used to be. > That depends on what you compare it with. You're comparing it to having > your package on some random Git server somewhere, but if you compare it > to having your package in Emacs itself, then it's much more "your" > source tree, and it has fewer constraints. But my comparison is what most authors will experience. Unless you're going to only talk to authors who already contribute to gnu emacs. >> You're also inviting people to break the Makefile because they want >> their own build. > > I don't know what you mean by that. I mean that people who want to have an odd build will attempt to make the Makefile do it and then break it. >> You're also inviting people to check in non-working code. > > How? Are you referring to "distributing tarballs without testing > them"? Yes. But also, my repo is mine. We have to have discipline around the emacs source tree and I think everyone undestands that's shared. But the expectation surely would be that my branch of the elpa.git is mine. >> I think that's my main point. There should be a package archive where >> authors send their "done" packages. > > I'd accept patches to the GNU ELPA scripts which lets authors do that. > Note that I've heard comments from other authors who find the "just bump > the version number" way of making a release to be really handy, so > I wouldn't want to force people to make their own archive. Really handy vs safe is something I think should err on the side of safe. >> I mean: You're doing something very weird. Why? > > I guess I just don't know what's weird about it. Maybe you don't know enough about software ecosystems? Nic