Incomplete org-plus-contrib

Incomplete org-plus-contrib

[Kaushal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1431 bytes --]

I was following the installation instructions on http://
<http://orgmode.org/elpa.html>orgmode.org <http://orgmode.org/elpa.html>/
<http://orgmode.org/elpa.html>elpa.html <http://orgmode.org/elpa.html>

because I wanted to have the org and the contrib packages installed via the
emacs package manager.

I installed the org-plus-contrib "package" from the package manager as per
the instructions but it is missing the org-eww.el (the very reason I wanted
to install the contrib stuff).

But I see that org-eww.el is indeed still present in the org git: http://
<http://orgmode.org/cgit.cgi/org-mode.git/tree/contrib/lisp/org-eww.el>
orgmode.org
<http://orgmode.org/cgit.cgi/org-mode.git/tree/contrib/lisp/org-eww.el>/
<http://orgmode.org/cgit.cgi/org-mode.git/tree/contrib/lisp/org-eww.el>
cgit.cgi
<http://orgmode.org/cgit.cgi/org-mode.git/tree/contrib/lisp/org-eww.el>/
<http://orgmode.org/cgit.cgi/org-mode.git/tree/contrib/lisp/org-eww.el>
org-mode.git
<http://orgmode.org/cgit.cgi/org-mode.git/tree/contrib/lisp/org-eww.el>
/tree/
<http://orgmode.org/cgit.cgi/org-mode.git/tree/contrib/lisp/org-eww.el>
contrib
<http://orgmode.org/cgit.cgi/org-mode.git/tree/contrib/lisp/org-eww.el>
/lisp/
<http://orgmode.org/cgit.cgi/org-mode.git/tree/contrib/lisp/org-eww.el>
org-eww.el
<http://orgmode.org/cgit.cgi/org-mode.git/tree/contrib/lisp/org-eww.el>

Can you please review why that file is not present in org-plus-contrib?

Thanks.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1707 bytes --]

Re: Incomplete org-plus-contrib

[Marco Wahl]

Hi!

Kaushal <kaushal.modi@gmail.com> writes:

> I was following the installation instructions on http://orgmode.org/elpa.html
>
> because I wanted to have the org and the contrib packages installed via the emacs package manager.
>
> I installed the org-plus-contrib "package" from the package manager as
> per the instructions but it is missing the org-eww.el (the very reason
> I wanted to install the contrib stuff).
>
> But I see that org-eww.el is indeed still present in the org git:
> http://orgmode.org/cgit.cgi/org-mode.git/tree/contrib/lisp/org-eww.el
>
> Can you please review why that file is not present in org-plus-contrib?

IIUC org-eww is missing because it is not included in branch 'maint'.
Possibly it is a good idea to put org-eww there.

Could you test org-eww, please?

It's easy.

- download
  http://orgmode.org/cgit.cgi/org-mode.git/plain/contrib/lisp/org-eww.el,

- load it into Emacs

- M-x eval-buffer

- test test test

When you find org-eww valuable the next step could be the merge to
branch maint.

Does this sound reasonable?


Thanks and best regards,  Marco
-- 
GPG: 0x49010A040A3AE6F2

Re: Incomplete org-plus-contrib

[Rasmus]

Marco Wahl <marcowahlsoft@gmail.com> writes:

> IIUC org-eww is missing because it is not included in branch 'maint'.
> Possibly it is a good idea to put org-eww there.

In the lisp folder, maint is typically for bug fixes.  I guess for contrib
it's more flexible.

—Rasmus

-- 
⠠⠵

Re: Incomplete org-plus-contrib

[Marco Wahl]

Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us> writes:

>> IIUC org-eww is missing because it is not included in branch 'maint'.
>> Possibly it is a good idea to put org-eww there.
>
> In the lisp folder, maint is typically for bug fixes.  I guess for contrib
> it's more flexible.

So would you recommend to copy org-eww to branch maint...contrib/lisp/?

Re: Incomplete org-plus-contrib

[Rasmus]

Marco Wahl <marcowahlsoft@gmail.com> writes:
> Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us> writes:
>
>>> IIUC org-eww is missing because it is not included in branch 'maint'.
>>> Possibly it is a good idea to put org-eww there.
>>
>> In the lisp folder, maint is typically for bug fixes.  I guess for contrib
>> it's more flexible.
>
> So would you recommend to copy org-eww to branch maint...contrib/lisp/?

Good question.  It kind of defies stable, but again, I don't think the
promise of stable necessarily extend to contrib.

Let's see what Bastien says.

—Rasmus

-- 
May contains speling mistake