On Fri, Sep 1, 2023, 9:13 AM Danny Freeman <danny@dfreeman.email> wrote:

>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> >> Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 12:14:21 +0300
> >> Cc: rms@gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> >> From: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry@gutov.dev>
> >>
> >> But we don't always agree between ourselves. Not on this subject anyway.
> >
> > Those disagreements are not relevant when the issue is the inclusion
> > of a package in core.
>
> I'd like to think I have the best interests of Emacs at heart, both as
> someone who has contributed a handful bug fixes to the core, as a
> clojure developer in my day job, and as the maintainer of
> clojure-ts-mode.
>
> With that in mind, I won't stand in the way of a new clojure editing
> mode for Emacs, in fact I suggested enabling lisp mode for clojure files
> somewhere else in this thread. However, I will advocate for not
> hijacking the name clojure-mode that has been in active use for 15
> years.


I don't think using the term "hijacking" is productive.  The GNU emacs
developers could well say that using a standard functional name like
"clojure-mode" with no intent to contribute it to the core was the
"hijacking", or perhaps namespace-squatting.  It would be different for
"cider" or another non-standard, nonfunctional name.  It should have been
obvious at the time clojure-mode was originally authored that the name
would have been adopted for a builtin mode if there were going to be one.

Lynn