From: Adam Porter <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Re: [ANN] org-ql 0.4 released Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:24:09 -0600 [thread overview] Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <email@example.com> Michael Alan Dorman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: >> Hi friends, >> >> FYI, I've released org-ql 0.4. It includes many improvements since 0.3. >> >> https://github.com/alphapapa/org-ql > > It would be nice if you could do a stable release of org-super-agenda so > that it could be installed from melpa-stable... Comments like yours lead me to the conclusion that MELPA Stable needs to be abolished. I have been a proponent of the idea of MELPA Stable, so I don't say that lightly. I'll assume that you don't know what the technical issues are and offer an explanation. Briefly: + MELPA Stable is nothing like what one might assume it's intended to be like, e.g. Debian Stable or Debian Testing. It provides none of the benefits that Debian Stable and Testing provide. + MELPA Stable is, just like "regular" MELPA, a "rolling" collection of packages developed without any coordination between maintainers. + The only difference is that MELPA Stable contains whatever versions of packages that their maintainers have decided to tag with a version number, rather than the latest commit to the master branch. These versions are not necessarily better, more stable, more reliable, or more trustworthy than the untagged versions which appear in "regular" MELPA. + Due to the lack of coordination between dependencies and their APIs, version conflicts and breakage are a regular occurrence. For example, if package A depends on package B, and package B makes an API change and tags a new MELPA Stable release, users of package A's MELPA Stable version will see package A cease to work properly until package A, not only commits a fix, but tags a new MELPA Stable version containing the fix. Since packages A and B do not share the same development schedule, it is likely that their tagged-version release schedules will not synchronize well. If you are familiar with Debian, imagine if any upstream changes were automatically pushed to Testing despite any freeze that might be in place. It would be virtually impossible to complete a freeze and make a new stable release, and Testing and Stable would cease to be useful, leaving only Unstable as a usable target. This is the situation between "regular" MELPA and MELPA Stable. For my packages, I tag stable versions for a few reasons: + To help users track changes in the changelog. + To help me separate new, possibly bug-introducing changes from working, debugged code. + To help packagers in systems like Debian and Guix, who package stable versions of some Elisp packages--and who, in so doing, take responsibility for breakage. Now, I sympathize with not wanting to be vulnerable to potential breakage caused by the uncoordinated release of changes to packages on "regular" MELPA. That is a real problem. But the solution is not to use MELPA Stable. The solution is to take charge of what packages you upgrade and when, rather than being at the mercy of whatever commits happen to be in MELPA at the moment. For myself, I commit the ~/.emacs.d/elpa directory to Git with the rest of my config, and I upgrade packages intentionally. If breakage happens, I can easily revert and deal with it later. Other users use alternative package managers, like Borg or Straight or Quelpa, which pull changes directly from Git repos and allow pinning to commits, tags, etc. So, for yourself, I can only recommend that you abandon MELPA Stable and install packages by other means. If you don't have the time or inclination to redo your whole config like that, then just use something like Quelpa to install the current version of org-super-agenda directly. It's a couple lines of use-package in your config, and you can upgrade it manually from then on, e.g. with <https://github.com/alphapapa/unpackaged.el#upgrade-a-quelpa-use-package-forms-package>. As always, your Emacs config is up to you. Now, I'm off to to the discussions on MELPA's tracker to add my vote to abolish MELPA Stable, or to at least allow packages to opt-out of it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-24 23:24 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-01-24 1:03 Adam Porter 2020-01-24 13:04 ` Michael Alan Dorman 2020-01-24 23:24 ` Adam Porter [this message] 2020-01-25 0:24 ` Tim Cross 2020-01-25 0:59 ` Adam Porter 2020-01-25 3:08 ` Michael Alan Dorman 2020-01-25 8:08 ` Adam Porter 2020-04-22 19:31 ` David R 2020-04-23 2:47 ` Adam Porter
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style List information: https://www.orgmode.org/ * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [ANN] org-ql 0.4 released' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).