From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: RFC: Adding BBDB to Emacs core
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 09:21:49 -0400
Message-ID: <jwva7tuf4br.fsf-monnier+gmane.emacs.devel@gnu.org>
References: <m3zi265o49.fsf@fitzsim.org> <ygfvacuugb7.fsf@fastmail.com>
	<87lgdpphmm.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <ygfo9il1k4i.fsf@fastmail.com>
	<CAM9Zgm0yQjL+tOg1cRfyfshb4oQGFMJNJ5057K58S1Fj+bJsgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<m21sffn2tl.fsf@newartisans.com> <m3o9ij42zk.fsf@fitzsim.org>
	<87sh7mjd7d.fsf@russet.org.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1524489605 13646 195.159.176.226 (23 Apr 2018 13:20:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:20:05 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)
To: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 23 15:20:01 2018
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17])
	by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1fAbNx-0003Qg-0J
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 15:20:01 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46731 helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1fAbQ3-0007VR-SR
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 09:22:11 -0400
Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59479)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org>) id 1fAbPv-0007U0-7S
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 09:22:04 -0400
Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org>) id 1fAbPr-0006RX-98
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 09:22:03 -0400
Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=56027 helo=blaine.gmane.org)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org>)
	id 1fAbPr-0006Qn-2v
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 09:21:59 -0400
Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org>) id 1fAbNf-00038E-Kd
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 15:19:43 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
Original-Lines: 16
Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ytO9fKF8dowOjVHyTyVleYvz55E=
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
	[fuzzy]
X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:224806
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/224806>

>> Assuming (2) achieves all that, from the core maintainer's perspective,
>> what's the difference?  The downside is they have two repos to deal
>> with, and the interactions between the two to always consider (e.g., do
>> we branch all of ELPA to match Emacs branches (probably not), or write
>> all ELPA packages to work on any Emacs branch (probably), etc.).
> There is actually a problem here with the way the ELPA is structured,
> since it already uses branches for (some) packages. This is not going to
> marry easily with the use of branches for something else.

Rather than a problem I see it as a defining aspect of whether a package
should be in elpa.git or in emacs.git, since the whole point of having
"unbundled packages" is so that their release schedule is not tied to
that of Emacs.


        Stefan