From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell Adams Subject: Re: Stable releases Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 15:40:09 -0500 Message-ID: <20150818204009.GW25378@cardamom.adamsinfoserv.com> References: <55CA2E6B.4060102@gmail.com> <87fv3gv6rj.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38422) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZRng8-000552-7L for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 16:40:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZRng4-00075f-4f for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 16:40:16 -0400 Received: from kefka.asoshared.com ([65.99.237.198]:52216) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZRng4-00075V-0g for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 16:40:12 -0400 Received: from c-98-201-100-25.hsd1.tx.comcast.net ([98.201.100.25]:21054 helo=localhost) by kefka.asoshared.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1ZRng2-0006J2-R5 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 16:40:10 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87fv3gv6rj.fsf@gnu.org> 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.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 07:36:00PM +0200, Bastien wrote: > Hi Scott, > > the main reason why 8.3 was not as "stable" as it should have been is > that I've been releasing it too quickly, after having been inactive > way too long. > > It's kind of a miracle that Org development could continue without an > active "official" maintainer for so long, and we owe a lot to Nicolas > and other contributors for this. Bastien, As a Org user since 2006 I've watched and appreciated how much time and effort yourself and Carsten have put into maintainership. This significant commitment brings about the following question: Is Org large enough that it would benefit from being broken into more pieces? For instance a stable core that includes only the major mode itself, which you continue to maintain. This defines the file syntax and includes core features which require little to no external programs or libraries. Then could you break out the exporters, babel, and many of the other sub-features into "plugins" that could be maintained separately by others, and they depend back to the core version? My impression has been that the core Org functionality has been stable for quite a while, and the org ecosystem grows by leaps and bounds as new users expand the incredibly flexible syntax to work for their use case. Could we reduce the amount of maintenance to the core if we separate the rapidly changing plugins to separate projects? Sorry if this has been hashed before, but I felt it appropriate to ask. Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Russell Adams RLAdams@AdamsInfoServ.com PGP Key ID: 0x1160DCB3 http://www.adamsinfoserv.com/ Fingerprint: 1723 D8CA 4280 1EC9 557F 66E8 1154 E018 1160 DCB3