[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ELPA commit freeze

From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: Re: ELPA commit freeze
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 04:28:58 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8

On 23.08.2013 03:51, Stefan Monnier wrote:
To have the description recognized by both Elpa and Melpa, currently I'd
have to keep the same text in README.md and Commentary.  And
describe-package' buffer from Melpa would end up looking better due to not
having extraneous info.

I don't think MELPA is very important here.

Until ELPA supports snapshots and updates faster than in 24 hours, Melpa is important, to me at least.

I guess you use it so as to
distribute snapshots of the code, but I think we need that for ELPA
anyway (we already have it for Org, tho it's terribly ad-hoc).

So far I see only one option for Org installation. To distribute snapshots, you'd have to use a separate package archive, right? One that's also disabled by default? What would be the advantages over Melpa? Its audience would likely be (and remain) smaller, for example.

So assuming we'll have a "GNU ELPA snapshots" archive (help welcome),
this is a non-problem.

It's either "help welcome" or "a non-problem", can't be both.
I'm not convinced this is something worth doing.

You currently have duplication between Commentary: and the homepage.
I'm just suggesting to move that duplication from Commentary: to
README.md.  So duplication-wise it's no worse than what we
currently have.

It would be. A README.md, if present, is expected to have Installation section and, basically, most of you see on the home page. So far, what's duplicated is mostly Usage, with some additional info added in Commentary.

The Commentary was written before me, by the way. The part about "how to write a back-end" probably need to move somewhere.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]