Re: Project systems (again)

[Bozhidar Batsov <bozhidar@batsov.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1726 bytes --]

On 18 April 2014 17:03, Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> wrote:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> > FWIW, I'd prefer that you work with EDE developers to improve and
> > extend what they have; starting from scratch (or almost from scratch)
> > sounds like waste of effort, especially since some of the EDE is
> > already in Emacs.
>
> I disagree: this wouldn't be starting from scratch.
>
> Projectile is one such existing system that people use, and a generic
> interface would allow for better integration with other packages, even
> those that choose to be project-management-system-agnostic, which is
> generally a good choice.
>
> Personally, I use Projectile already, and switching to EDE wouldn't be
> an improvement for my use. As a bonus, its primary developer (Bozhidar
> Batsov) already has copyright assignment on file, so it wouldn't be
> inconceivable to add it to GNU ELPA soon or eventually. But of course,
> there will be other contributors to take care of.
>
>
Btw, Projectile was the reason I signed the copyright assignment in the
first place. Stefan approached me a few years back
about including it into ELPA, but for some reason we never actually got to
doing this.

Projectile is not without its quirks, but I'm fairly certain its one of the
best project management options around. What's most important, however, is
that it's pretty well battle tested - thousands of users have been using it
over the last 3 years and have submitted numerous bug reports, feature
requests and patches. Starting for scratch would reset the counter on all
(most) of that. I'm certainly biased, but I think focusing more effort on
improving Projectile makes more sense than implementing an alternative
solution.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2253 bytes --]