Re: ELPA contributions?

[Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>]

Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am@gmail.com> writes:

> 2015-10-13 10:35 GMT+01:00 Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@russet.org.uk>:
>>
>> If I understand, a git subtree squash is not like a normal rebase; it
>> does actually know about the commits that were squashed, as opposed to
>> rewriting them like a rebase squash.
>
> Perhaps. But still, people should not squash to elpa.git. It has
> downsides with no real benefits (that I know of).
>
> - If your package is part of elpa.git, then its commit messages should
> be part of elpa.git's commit messages (even if the package is being
> primarily developed somewhere else).
> - The build-scripts can generate package change-logs from commit messages.
> - If someone is trying to `git-blame' one of your package files,
> having squashed is only going to complicate matters.
>
> I've added some better instructions to the Readme, but there's still
> much that needs to be done to it.
>
>> > 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),
>>
>> For my own packages, I'd moved them from mercurial on google code to
>> github shortly before, so shifting the development to ELPA didn't seem
>> like a good way forward. For dash, it just reflects the reality -- it
>> was already developed on github and wasn't going to move.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> All of that would help.
>
> All agreed. Some packages are always going to prefer being primarily
> on Github. But having a better bug-tracker here would make it so that
> fewer packages feel obligated to be on Github. For let-alist, for
> instance, I wanted to develop the package here directly, so I created
> a github repo with no source just for the issue tracker..

Who runs debbugs? How hard would it be to add a cc based on the
Maintainer header?