[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: PL support

From: Clément Pit-Claudel
Subject: Re: PL support
Date: Sun, 10 May 2020 00:08:55 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0

On 09/05/2020 19.19, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
> On 10.05.2020 01:23, Clément Pit-Claudel wrote:
>> On 09/05/2020 17.49, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
>>> On 09.05.2020 22:55, Clément Pit-Claudel wrote:
>>>> Let's not be too hasty with calling the debate silly.  I don't use either 
>>>> lsp-mode or eglot but I do see strong opinions in favor of both, and 
>>>> "blessing" one as official, especially a (currently) less popular one, can 
>>>> cause sour feelings and give the perception that emacs-devel is being 
>>>> insular.
>>> In principle, I disagree: as long as Eglot is maintained and works well, 
>>> we*should*  present it as "blessed", and we can do that in introduction 
>>> videos, documentation, tutorials, etc.
>> But why more than lsp-mode?
> Because they choose to participate in the "core" Emacs development very 
> little?

Oh? I thought we chose to exclude them by writing a competing package instead 
of trying to bring them aboard.
What does it mean for an external package to participate in the core Emacs 

> And because they chose not to get included in GNU ELPA, which would be a 
> "reward" in itself (oob availability for new users). We couldn't mention 
> packages not in GNU ELPA in documentation as prominently anyway.

Really?  The only thing I could find is 
https://github.com/emacs-lsp/lsp-mode/issues/83, where the general opinion is 
that it would be good for lsp-mode to be in core, until they (mistakenly) seem 
to conclude that eglot is in core already.  What am I missing?

> We couldn't mention packages not in GNU ELPA in documentation as prominently 
> anyway.

Why?  Is the policy that it's bad to endorse code not *owned* by the FSF?

reply via email to

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