Re: Naming guidelines for ELPA packages

[Philip Kaludercic]

Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com> writes:

> On 5/14/2023 12:47 AM, Philip Kaludercic wrote:
>> I agree with everything up until the last paragraph, but am not
>> convinced that encouraging a "fun name" should be part of the
>> guidelines.
>
> I think I need to adjust the passage a bit to emphasize that the
> Emacs/ELPA maintainers would *prefer* a simple and straightforward
> name like "gobject". However, I also think it's important to show how
> you can come up with a good compromise if you're a package author who
> just can't let go of your fun package name. In my mind, showing in the
> documentation how to compromise on this would go a long way towards
> making package authors not feel like they're being micromanaged.

That would sound acceptable to me.