From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: D Subject: Re: A new, "org-bullets"-like minor mode Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 21:00:54 +0100 Message-ID: <02fe0132-09a8-d804-ff0b-344c08d625ee@posteo.net> References: <44f74f7f-2dfc-6ff1-235a-7f777eec737a@posteo.net> <87zhe0pz6i.fsf@bernoul.li> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38402) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iyLQT-0001fQ-Jx for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Feb 2020 15:01:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iyLQS-0003Ns-Gz for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Feb 2020 15:01:01 -0500 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:50145) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iyLQS-0003M4-7A for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Feb 2020 15:01:00 -0500 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA5A2240100 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2020 21:00:57 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <87zhe0pz6i.fsf@bernoul.li> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: Jonas Bernoulli , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org > I haven't looked at the code yet but would it make sense for your new > mode just being renamed to "org-bullet" instead? Do you expect that > some current users won't want to update? I have been considering that, but decided against replacing org-bullets (or calling the package something akin to org-bullets+) for two reasons: 1) For the things I have/had in mind I would not have wanted to ensure backwards-compatibility. I would hate to see long-time users of org-bullets to experience breakage because of design decisions I made. I think that there is a lot of value in keeping a straightforward package with a singular goal for people that want exactly that. While I made sure to ease the pain of transitioning for people interested, I would not want to touch it beyond maintenance. From what I know, spacemacs ships with it for example, so I would not like to cause anything downstream without warning. 2) While there are perfectly valid reasons to name a package similar to another ("xpackage", "packagex", "package+", "pakG", ...) I personally shy away from the practice to avoid confusion. LaTeX packages are notorious for this, and their overuse of this convention has led to many frustrating afternoons for me in the past years. > If you want to stick with creating a new mode, are there any bug fixes > that you could backport to "org-bullet"? I am sincerely considering to help maintain the project, to "adopt" it from the orphanage, should org-superstar gain any popularity. I will gladly port anything technical (bugfixes, plausible performance patches) I can to org-bullets if requested, but I would not add features. However, I hesitate to immediately pick up the role of maintaining org-bullets for the simple reason that I'd first like to have a project of my own to show for myself, as a proof of responsibility if you will. > I don't actually use it myself and just enable it temporarily if someone > reports a bug or something. It's not that I am not interested in > something like this package, but from the sound of it I would rather use > your package than the old "org-bullet". If you find the time to check out my package, I am always open for criticism and suggestions. Seeing how young the package is I am very open to adding features and making quality of life improvements to the interfaces. > If I remember correctly it, then it took some effort to contact sabof, > but eventually they gave their blessing. I sent sabof a mail via the Github address, if you have any means of communication with him, would you mind sharing them?