RE: enable MELPA & Marmalade by defaul [was: mykie.el]

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> >> GNU ELPA (enabled by default with Emacs, unlike MELPA or
> >> Marmalade).
> >
> > Apropos: Why shouldn't GNU Emacs enable all three by default?
> >
> > That would help GNU Emacs users more, I think.
> 
> One easy answer is that MELPA and Marmalade are non under the
> control of the Emacs prooject.

So?  GNU Emacs is not responsible for whatever it might be that
those repos have or do.  And I think we (should) know by now
that most, if not all, of what they do can be helpful for Emacs
users.

> A more serious concern is that some (all?) of the packages MELPA
> offers are development versions (i.e. unreleased, mostly untested).

Even if that were true - so what?  And what's a "development
version"?  What does "unreleased" mean?  How tested is "tested"?

The fact that you would even think of writing "(all?)" is, I think,
indicative of how far off the mark you are on this.

> I know of at least one case where unwary users obtained from MELPA
> a broken package, causing much grief among users and developers
> alike.

So what?  See above.  GNU Emacs is not responsible for those repos
just because it might include their names in the list of repos 
available by default.  (If you want, provide a `parental-control'
command that lets a Mother Hen remove certain repos from the list
as a preventative measure. ;-))

When you buy a Samsung TV and it comes enabled for use by Netflix
(provided you subscribe), does that make Samsung responsible for
something that Netflix might offer?  Good luck with a law suit
that makes that claim.

Should `eww' give users access, by default, only to web sites
that GNU Emacs Dev (TM) has vetted ("tested", "released"...)?
Who will do all the vetting?

Think users, not lawyers.  This is not GNanny, or at least it
did not used to be.