|
From: | Dmitry Gutov |
Subject: | Re: dash.el [was: Re: Imports / inclusion of s.el into Emacs] |
Date: | Sun, 17 May 2020 22:47:48 +0300 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 |
On 17.05.2020 22:30, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
From: Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden> Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 22:21:33 +0300 Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden On 17.05.2020 21:38, Eli Zaretskii wrote:What happened here was something completely different. "Here's a new package, it does this and that." -- "Not sure we should have it in core, how about if you put it on ELPA for the time being?"Yes, we did say that. And then, we never went back to reconsider, to put any of such packages into the core.That's not very relevant to the issue at hand. Let's not change the subject.
I don't understand what makes you say that.
And we never got any complaints about that, either.Here I am, complaining.
You're not the author of any of these packages. Not an ELPA user either, IIUC.
So I'm saying it's generally a good thing for most packages, to be put into ELPA instead. We didn't explain that outright (which is suboptimal), but it seems like most submitters realized this afterward.Of course, you'd say that: you think packages should be on ELPA as a matter of principle. You also think we should take some of what is already in Emacs and put it on ELPA instead. I wouldn't expect a balanced opinion from you on this matter.
Way to dismiss the arguments without reading.Since your experience with ELPA is basically zero, how are you going to determine what is a balanced opinion, and what isn't?
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |