Re: dash.el [was: Re: Imports / inclusion of s.el into Emacs]

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > Others seem to think otherwise.  So maybe we should begin even farther
  > back: by defining what it means to be a GNU ELPA package that is
  > considered "compatible with core".

  > Here's my definition: it is a package which we can move in or out of
  > core whenever we like, and/or distribute it as part of an Emacs
  > release, whether the Emacs source tarball or any auxiliary tarballs
  > that are considered part of an official Emacs distribution.

If we want to define "compatible with core" (i.e., ready to be moved
to the core if we wish), that is a good definition.

The crucial policy decision is the next step: under what circumstances
should we insist that a GNU ELPA package be compatible with core, as a
condition of admiting it to GNU ELPA?

  > > Personally I don't see much benefit in such labeling: the way I expect
  > > it to work is rather:
  > > - Shouldn't we include SuperFoo into the tarball?
  > > - Oh, yes, good idea.  Let's see ... is it in a good enough shape?
  > > - Almost, we just have to fix this and that.
  > > - OK, let's do that.
  > > - [time passes]
  > > - Alright, now this and that has been fixed, let's include it.
  > > - Great, thanks, done.

It would be unwise to put ourselves in this position.
Delaying before handling the papers will make it harder,
perhaps impossible.

(I explained the reasons earlier this week.)

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)