Re: Naming guidelines for ELPA packages (was: Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: devil)

[Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com>]

On 5/15/2023 3:15 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 think your guideline text is good.  It's quite clear, and readable
> too.
> 
> But I'm confusd by this subsequent comment:
> 
>    > However, I also think it's important to show how you can
>    > come up with a good compromise if you're a package author who just can't
>    > let go of your fun package name. In my mind, showing in the
>    > documentation how to compromise on this would go a long way towards
>    > making package authors not feel like they're being micromanaged.
> 
> The last paragraph of your draft text, about goblin-functions,
> 
>    > Instead, I finally opt for a compromise: I'll still use "Goblin" when
>    > documenting the package and prefix names in my code with "goblin-", but
>    > I decide to submit it to GNU ELPA as "goblin-functions". While this
>    > isn't as descriptive as "gobject", it does at least provide a hint to
>    > the reader that this is a collection of functions (intended for other
>    > Lisp authors, as opposed to end users).
> 
> seems to do that -- so why is a change needed?

I just want to adjust the emphasis of the text to gently nudge package 
maintainers to choose something as simple as possible like "gobject" if 
they can (or if they're willing). I think the final draft will be pretty 
close to how it is now, but with a couple extra sentences to add more 
detail.

> I think goblin-gobjects might be a superior compromise.

That's a good idea. I'll change the text to use that name instead. Thanks.