From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Donald Curtis Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: ELPA commit freeze Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:44:55 -0700 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c32ed850d8f104e4a0f974 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1377279948 12983 80.91.229.3 (23 Aug 2013 17:45:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 17:45:48 +0000 (UTC) To: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Aug 23 19:45:51 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VCvQh-0000Ut-Ku for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 19:45:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38060 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VCvQh-0002dV-23 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 13:45:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53520) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VCvQY-0002cO-W3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 13:45:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VCvQX-0006MT-Te for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 13:45:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-la0-x229.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c03::229]:45863) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VCvQX-0006Lz-EC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 13:45:37 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-la0-f41.google.com with SMTP id ec20so716910lab.14 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:45:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=5q2WXnCMUElqNpEiEaawcHQrXva5DGGv2hGX/dg2OT4=; b=zaSthpUdLNqC8RifHuospSkCi9w0129j0e6VcdWQwzAbIQ1sRFqyB0HGV3HjIg1yr4 Gqs/kK0BUSFr81mEq0oZ2UnLSENprlA9UiQttbderM4ws5OFxPyVPRaJo6JT9edlW67c UziopmTDe6EQs/oPAcPnUoP0zyxUH64SWSsNmbU1Fy1H9RrDSjy4g+teuBMiXvBMfH5Y Un1Yq3f2zwM0ihUxtQxcUbfmWeV2pCmF9FSlIEqkTWpL8fkElj50eI9YitrNtLukIJyA 0nWlJ02RLfou1vQWkcLGXBKChcIJOs1GN9f29SXQ1TOXpgkW1yBSUpa/YPwYump6GByU SsZg== X-Received: by 10.112.219.133 with SMTP id po5mr71620lbc.51.1377279935566; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:45:35 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.112.36.97 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:44:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Sender-Auth: RoyWiDmjktDApQ_FHH02-2VS20s X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4010:c03::229 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:162996 Archived-At: --001a11c32ed850d8f104e4a0f974 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I wasn't able to capture the entire conversation in my head by reading the archives but I just wanted to chime in on how we (MELPA) see the README vs. the commentary section. As far as I know, the commentary is what we use to craft the `describe-package` information. Our impression was that for single-file packages, the commentary is normally enough to describe the purpose of the package and normal use-case. For larger packages, lets say "magit" for example, the commentary should be a short description of the package and maybe a link to more documentation, possibly a link to the README. I can see that in some cases this is a bit of duplicate information, but in most cases I think the commentary is a bit lighter on details. Hope this helps give some outsider input. I would agree that "as MELPA" what we say or feel shouldn't impact the greater Emacs community. I contribute this information as a user who has thought about packages a lot. --001a11c32ed850d8f104e4a0f974 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I wasn't able to capture the entire conversation in my= head by reading the archives but I just wanted to chime in on how we (MELP= A) see the README vs. the commentary section. As far as I know, the comment= ary is what we use to craft the `describe-package` information. Our impress= ion was that for single-file packages, the commentary is normally enough to= describe the purpose of the package and normal use-case.

For larger packages, lets say "magit" for example,= the commentary should be a short description of the package and maybe a li= nk to more documentation, possibly a link to the README.
I can se= e that in some cases this is a bit of duplicate information, but in most ca= ses I think the commentary is a bit lighter on details.

Hope this helps give some outsider input. I would agree= that "as MELPA" what we say or feel shouldn't impact the gre= ater Emacs community. I contribute this information as a user who has thoug= ht about packages a lot.
--001a11c32ed850d8f104e4a0f974--