bug#47047: [External] : Re: bug#47047: 28.0.50; 'help-key-binding' face's background sub-optimal

[Drew Adams]

> > 1. IMO, bugginess of a theme should matter (should
> >    be thought about, as you put it), but low usage
> >    (coverage?) should not.  Why remove a theme just
> >    because it's seldom used?
> 
> What I mean by coverage is that it has only few faces defined, which
> leads to inconsistent results.

I see.  (I took a guess that you meant usage.)

What do you mean by "faces defined"?  Do you mean new
faces added by the theme, or existing faces redefined
by the theme, or something else?

Existing faces that are not redefined are nevertheless
covered (still defined), I'd think.

What inconsistent results have you identified?  What
kinds of inconsistency?

> > 3. I have no idea who the "maintainer" of that theme is.
> >    We were asked to contribute themes when custom themes
> >    became a possibility, and I sent that one.
> 
> That was a commendable initiative on your part.
> 
> The question I am thinking about is what to do about it now.

Why do you think you need to do anything "about it" now?


> Perhaps we (read: our users) aren't well served by
> unmaintained/incomplete themes?

As you say, users can report bugs.

In what way do you find it unmaintained or incomplete?
Has something needed to be changed, for maintenance
reasons?

There's plenty of code that's part of Emacs that hasn't
been changed an iota over the years, but still works.
Does that mean that it's necessarily unmaintained or
incomplete?  Certainly any code could be enhanced, but
that's something different, and not a requirement for
its continuation.

> Perhaps there are other themes that we would want to include (see
> modus-themes)?  These are the issues that interest me.

That's orthogonal to your bringing up the light-blue theme.

> Conventionally, when there is only an "Author" but no
> "Maintainer" line, the author is also the maintainer.  If you don't
> consider yourself the maintainer, and no one else wants to step up, the
> conventional thing would be to add a line "Maintainer: emacs-devel".
> That's my understanding at least.

If that's conventional, please feel free to go ahead
and add such a line.  I guess that would be an act of
"maintenance", but I won't tell anyone you're doing
maintenance. ;-)

Anything more critical than the missing "Maintainer"
designation?