[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: PL support

From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: Re: PL support
Date: Sun, 10 May 2020 16:28:10 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0

On 10.05.2020 07:08, Clément Pit-Claudel wrote:

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.

We did what? I didn't write anything like that.

Only one person did, on his own volition. Then the package got added to ELPA on usual conditions.

What does it mean for an external package to participate in the core Emacs 

Well, um, that would mean for individual authors to participate, I guess. Maybe contribute useful code as libraries. Example of another failed discussion: https://github.com/emacs-lsp/lsp-ui/issues/50

And for packages to be contributed to GNU ELPA, with the subsequent possibility of having useful bits extracted and generalized.

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?

You're missing the first sentence in the message you are looking at.

What do you expect? I'm tired of chasing people and asking them to contribute. Do you fault me not going there and asking again?

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

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

We can't make adding MELPA to the archives list a part of an official tutorial. For multiple reasons, code ownership only one of them.

reply via email to

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