From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Wiegley Subject: Re: Sync up the org in emacs master to org maint branch? Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 20:54:39 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87k29d7zvw.fsf@engster.org> <87fuk08i01.fsf@engster.org> <87d1f36xnc.fsf@engster.org> <87a8a4ees0.fsf@engster.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87a8a4ees0.fsf@engster.org> (David Engster's message of "Thu, 02 Feb 2017 17:30:39 +0100") List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-devel" To: David Engster Cc: Bastien Guerry , Emacs developers , emacs-org list , Phillip Lord , Kaushal Modi List-Id: emacs-orgmode.gnu.org >>>>> "DE" == David Engster writes: DE> So if you don't get convinced, we'll just move again, right? No big deal. I suppose I'm asking that of you, yes. DE> You are insinuating that my motivation is to delegate CEDET development to DE> the core Emacs developers. This is simply not true, and I don't see how my DE> original mail could be interpreted like that. I didn't mean to insinuate anything; it seems we may have gotten off on the wrong foot, my intention is to make your life easier, not harder. If all this would do is make more work for people, it's not worth it. DE> So let me try again: What I find completely misguided is to move packages DE> out of core *but still putting them into the release*. In other words, in DE> my opinion there are really just two options that make sense: you either DE> keep a package in core, or you kick it out and don't ship it with the DE> release. Why is this so? Right now I see the Emacs release as more than just releasing Emacs core; it's more of a "batteries included" release, combining the editor with lots of other default packages. It makes sense to me to move these batteries outside the core repository, than to put them all together in the same Git repository. We can arrange things so that a Git clone of Emacs includes pulling the submodules (or trees, or ELPA.git, or what not) that are considered part of "main Emacs development", including some of those batteries. I see this all as a process issue, and that "living in one Git repository" has just been an implementation strategy to satisfy that process. Why do the split at all? Core becomes smaller, its future history less cluttered, updating packages within it is no longer a major issue, and (I hope) it will be clearer when something is a core issue vs. a package issue. Also, people wanting to contribute new code to Emacs will not feel we're consigning them to disuse by saying it will go in ELPA. I've seen a few arguments already for things going into core, just to ensure more people would use it. DE> Say the Python developers would decide: Hey, many people like Django, so DE> let's just put their latest git master into our release and ship it. Would DE> you think that is a good approach? Some companies have actually done this. I remember when ActivePython bundled quite a few things, making it an attractive alternate to installing core Python (back when package management was still very poor in Python world). -- John Wiegley GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F http://newartisans.com 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2