From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tassilo Horn Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: ELPA update Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:41:35 +0200 Message-ID: <87bou5rrcw.fsf@thinkpad.tsdh.de> References: <87y5xavz8i.fsf@keller.adm.naquadah.org> <87fwji2d8o.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87ehz1ds54.fsf@keller.adm.naquadah.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1317199318 7647 80.91.229.12 (28 Sep 2011 08:41:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:41:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Chong Yidong Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 28 10:41:54 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R8piD-0004mg-Ec for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:41:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39190 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R8piD-0001VE-1B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 04:41:53 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:43565) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R8pi9-0001Un-SK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 04:41:50 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R8pi2-0000OX-CB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 04:41:49 -0400 Original-Received: from deliver.uni-koblenz.de ([141.26.64.15]:60379) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R8pi2-0000OP-1o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 04:41:42 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by deliver.uni-koblenz.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58B351A40BB; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:41:41 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at uni-koblenz.de Original-Received: from deliver.uni-koblenz.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (deliver.uni-koblenz.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pk+BpXoQ73yG; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:41:40 +0200 (CEST) X-CHKRCPT: Envelopesender noch tassilo@member.fsf.org Original-Received: from thinkpad.tsdh.de (tsdh.uni-koblenz.de [141.26.67.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by deliver.uni-koblenz.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A273E1A40AC; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:41:40 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87ehz1ds54.fsf@keller.adm.naquadah.org> (Julien Danjou's message of "Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:48:23 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 141.26.64.15 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:144438 Archived-At: Julien Danjou writes: >> But I'm open to arguments for simply setting it up as a cron job. > > I hope that the checks are done before commiting. :-) So I'd rather > like a daily cronjob rathen than disturbing you each time I commit a > bugfix that I want to give to users. I second that. Currently, I don't use GNU's ELPA but have a checkout of the emacs elpa branch that I update and "make site" daily, and then I add the "elpa/packages//" dirs of the packages I'm interested into my load-path manually. That completely defeats the purpose of a package manager... Just found out: I guess, I could simply replace the entry ("gnu" . "http://elpa.gnu.org/packages/") with ("gnu" . "/home/horn/repos/el/emacs/elpa/packages/") in `package-archives' to always have the most current packages in `package-list-packages'. But as long as the people committing in the elpa branch pretend to know what they do and nobody prooves the opposite, I'd still vote for an automated process. As the number of changes grows, a manual review process won't catch all errors anyway, and then it's good to be able to quickly commit a bugfix and know that that will hit the ELPA archive short time later. Bye, Tassilo