> On 24.10.2022 08:14, Bozhidar Batsov wrote:
>> The patch seems fine to me, but I'm a bit skeptical about the whole
>> rolling releases idea in general
>
> This is the default operation for MELPA, which arguably has more
> popular packages than ELPA.
To my knowledge all of the major packages on MELPA are also available
via GNU or NonGNU ELPA, so I don't know if this is really an argument.
>> How hard it is for people to actually update version timestamps
>> themselves or to just stick to the *-devel repos if they don't want
>> to cut releases?
>
> As a package-developer, I may release patches weekly, but I update
> main versions maybe once every second year, if/when someone bothers me
> about it.
>
> Not having to version things manually is a god-send.
It really depends, I am certainly no recommending to enable this by
default. The idea is just to accommodate people like you who prefer
this mode of publishing releases.
I’m just supporting having rolling releases as a possibility. Lots of users and developers prefer it that way.
In fact that’s how I (as a user) consume Emacs: git pull and build. I’m not waiting for official tagged versions.