From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Philip Kaludercic Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Allowing rolling release packages on ELPA Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 06:30:41 +0000 Message-ID: <87wn8nrt9q.fsf@posteo.net> References: <87o7u4p2t4.fsf@posteo.net> <5340a07b-a9bb-41a1-add2-4c0fe3f66e8c@app.fastmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="5202"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: "Emacs Devel" To: "Bozhidar Batsov" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 26 08:36:07 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ona1H-000197-Eo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 08:36:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1onZxI-0003LJ-9t; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 02:32:00 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1onZwC-0000sy-Bo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 02:30:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1onZwA-0004so-4u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 02:30:52 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CED0240026 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 08:30:47 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1666765847; bh=VlR7RdFoxrqHkmH5jeoSbjb4HdkyKVDEWyq9xgvPLa0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Autocrypt:Date:From; b=ODkzrRg31nhiV8Nwl80MJr91h5pQ3vASSwuGCVyho8jxSBDyvWek3OxrOfi/tDkPP QS2eJoPOdrTeY7ZyX/lSFARujqdMPBTZxk6SJ642sQtx+GjqLLbcuTNytjD8Te5xbb 3q2GrBetHC1pwvt5N42OW5VqlLn69IE6bHU6fyaBcFHDkQx82EL7xcFKwtNYPFdJPR Tz2FvntvDf8qk2M8uYH9VqhlxZ+PzcRn1bVJomDARjGfLTsHx5eECZf9ZHLdbkzjYg RIz8SiNxRNPxRlyU0uRlMyjY/I4fklNy+a7OdbVb3ga4NoVweFCcCpy90Q5T2gfq6g kshSwRtmPkwkw== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4MxzTL1tlWz6tnd; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 08:30:42 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <5340a07b-a9bb-41a1-add2-4c0fe3f66e8c@app.fastmail.com> (Bozhidar Batsov's message of "Wed, 26 Oct 2022 08:10:25 +0300") Autocrypt: addr=philipk@posteo.net; prefer-encrypt=nopreference; keydata= mDMEYHHqUhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAp3GdmYJ6tm5McweY6dEvIYIiry+Oz9rU4MH6NHWK0Ee0QlBo aWxpcCBLYWx1ZGVyY2ljIChnZW5lcmF0ZWQgYnkgYXV0b2NyeXB0LmVsKSA8cGhpbGlwa0Bwb3N0 ZW8ubmV0PoiQBBMWCAA4FiEEDM2H44ZoPt9Ms0eHtVrAHPRh1FwFAmBx6lICGwMFCwkIBwIGFQoJ CAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQtVrAHPRh1FyTkgEAjlbGPxFchvMbxzAES3r8QLuZgCxeAXunM9gh io0ePtUBALVhh9G6wIoZhl0gUCbQpoN/UJHI08Gm1qDob5zDxnIHuDgEYHHqUhIKKwYBBAGXVQEF AQEHQNcRB+MUimTMqoxxMMUERpOR+Q4b1KgncDZkhrO2ql1tAwEIB4h4BBgWCAAgFiEEDM2H44Zo Pt9Ms0eHtVrAHPRh1FwFAmBx6lICGwwACgkQtVrAHPRh1Fw1JwD/Qo7kvtib8jy7puyWrSv0MeTS g8qIxgoRWJE/KKdkCLEA/jb9b9/g8nnX+UcwHf/4VfKsjExlnND3FrBviXUW6NcB Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=philipk@posteo.net; helo=mout01.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:298516 Archived-At: "Bozhidar Batsov" writes: > Instead of setting version numbers manually (e.g. 0.1, 0.2) upon > release time, with rolling releases every change (commit) pushed > upstream results automatically in a new release and a version bump, > with the version being a timestamp. Not quite, the time stamp is appended to the regular version number. > E.g. if I push 3 commits one day > with some time between them this will result in 3 releases. I think > it's a great approach for snapshot (devel) repos, but I'm not so sure > about "stable" repos, as it kinda of implies that the author will > never have their project in an inconsistent state (e.g. halfway > towards a new feature). Right, so it would only be used whenever a package author prefers that method of development. > This approach was made popular by https://melpa.org/ > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022, at 11:14 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: >> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] >> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] >> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] >> >> > I have heard from people who prefer a rolling release model for their >> > packages, >> >> Can you explain what that means, concretely? How is t different from >> what we do now? It is currently necessary to bump the version tag in the package header to indicate that a release is to be made. If a package specification has a non-nil :rolling-release tag, then this is done whenever the repository is synchronised. >> and requested that their packages not be added for {Non,}GNU >> > ELPA if they would have to update the version header manually, >> > presumably on every commit. >> >> Is this something we would _want_ to do? What would its implications >> be for Emacs? It wouldn't affect Emacs, just packages that request this kind of release management. >> We might decide to support their style of release, or decide not to >> include their packages in NonGNU ELPA, or we might come up with >> another solution. I don't know what's best. But I'm sure we should >> think about that before we decide. If the only issue a package has is that it is developed using a "rolling release" model, it would be nonsensical for us to not accommodate the request and reject a (perhaps popular) package on that ground.