Re: Packages quality (was: [nongnu] main 74116339a8 2/3: * elpa-packages (anzu): New package)

[Stefan Kangas]

"Bozhidar Batsov" <bozhidar@batsov.dev> writes:

> Fair enough. I'm a bit concerned that often evaluations of the
> quality/usefulness of something are subjective (e.g. the people who
> like flymake would argue that flycheck might be "redundant", etc). To
> me - it's fine to try to solve the same problem in multiple ways if
> there's no clearly superior way of doing something. I guess a package
> is never really obsolete until no one uses it and maintains it.

FWIW, this makes sense to me.

> In general I agree that some quality criteria have to be met for a
> package to be included on NGE, I just hope that those criteria are
> going to be of the objective kind.

Here's how I see the current situation:

We currently have the luxury to pick and choose which packages get
added.  In the future, users or developers will increasingly ask us to
include this or that package.  I think it will be rare that we should
have any reason to deny such requests.

Currently, I won't spend my limited time working on adding things that I
see little value in, as there are so many important packages that are
still missing.  However, if someone makes an explicit request for
something, I would think about encouraging such participation by
prioritizing it above something that I would otherwise see as higher
priority.