Re: [elpa] main 8f4cb59: * elpa-packages (counsel, ivy, swiper): Auto-sync.

["Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob@tcd.ie>]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> To me the two best options are:
>
> - Split the upstream repository so we get one repository per ELPA package.

No objections from me, but that's Oleh's call and I think
ivy/swiper/counsel are too tightly coupled anyway.

> - Get rid of the split between the ELPA packages (so you again get one
>   ELPA package per repository).

This sounds like the path of least resistance for everyone, and I'm in
favour of it, but let's see what Oleh thinks.

This would involve deleting the other packages, though, right?  (Since
there would otherwise be multiple different copies of the same files in
elpa.git.)  Wouldn't users complain?

> Another option is to have separate manually-synced branches in the
> upstream, one per ELPA package.  This is basically the same as what we
> have currently, except that the manual syncing is done between the "main"
> branch" and the "for-elpa branches" (all within the upstream repository)
> rather than between the main branch in the upstream and the elpa
> branches in `elpa.git`.  To me, it seems to bring no benefit, but
> I guess depending on your workflow (and access rights) it could make
> a difference.

For better or worse I have access rights in both repositories, and I
don't mind maintaining these branches in swiper.git.  To me, the main
benefit of this would be not having to switch between different
repositories for development or Git trickery, and then elpa.git would
remain more declarative.  But ultimately I'm happy to do either.

BTW, is it possible/kosher to force-push to external branches in
elpa.git?

> There's another option, which I dislike and introduces inefficiencies,
> which is to make all those packages have the exact same content (so they
> all have the same upstream branch and we can fast-forward it) and then
> rely on the `:ignored-files` parameter in `elpa-packages` to filter out the
> files we don't want in the tarballs.
> Downsides:
> - A full elpa.git checkout (like the one elpa.gnu.org keeps to build the tarballs, or the
>   one I keep on my machines to "install in place" all the GNU ELPA packages)
>   would contain duplicate copies.
> - The `:ignored-files` doesn't have any notion of "negation" so you
>   can't say "ignore all but counsel.el", making those lists of
>   ignored files annoying to maintain.
> - For the "install in place" case, those duplicate copies get
>   redundantly byte-compiled as well.
> - For the "install in place" case, the "ivy.el" file loaded by Emacs
>   may not be the one I think: instead of `packages/ivy/ivy.el` the
>   `load-path` may direct Emacs to choose `packages/counsel/ivy.el`
>   instead (so I'd have to be careful to ask Emacs which file it's using
>   before I start hacking on it, lest I'd start modifying one file which
>   turns out not be used, which could lead me to tearing out my hair for
>   a while).

Anything to protect your hair!

>> Or maybe adding something like MELPA's ability to specify which exact
>> files to consider from the upstream repository?
>
> That could be added, and could reduce the burden of managing the
> `:ignored-filed`, yes.

It would be nice to have, but it doesn't address the hair tearing issue,
so I won't be bothering with it just yet.

Thanks,

-- 
Basil