From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tftorrey@tftorrey.com (T.F. Torrey) Subject: Re: Bleeding edge in elpa Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2015 11:09:46 -0700 Message-ID: <877furuzrp.fsf@jack.tftorrey.com> References: <87ioebmvex.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58240) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YUgVI-0007O8-SB for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Mar 2015 15:04:45 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YUgVF-0003ZW-L2 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Mar 2015 15:04:44 -0400 Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::196]:40996) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YUgVF-0003ZN-BP for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Mar 2015 15:04:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87ioebmvex.fsf@gmail.com> (message from Aaron Ecay on Sun, 08 Mar 2015 11:17:19 -0300) 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: Aaron Ecay Cc: now@disu.se, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org A major benefit of an ELPA version of the "bleeding edge" version of Org is that it enables those of us who run Emacs and Org on machines where we can not install git (or just do not want to) to have the latest version of Org nonetheless. In a real-world situation, I want to collaborate on Org files with my wife and parents, and I want to use the current best version of Org (which has significant improvements to #+INCLUDE that I use), but I do not want to try to install git on their Windows machines, and I do not want to scare them off by introducing the world of Git in addition to Emacs. And it's not limited to #+INCLUDE. I've been using Org for many years, and no matter how good a release of Org has been, the version in maint has followed right behind with new killer features. Having that version in Elpa makes it easier for me to share the awesome. Aaron Ecay writes: > IMO this is a bad idea. The bleeding edge version is expected to be > somewhat unstable, and exposing it via ELPA will lead to foot-shooting > incidents. I understand this concern in principle, but it is difficult for me to imagine how it would be validated in actual usage. Serious Org users are already forced to install and run git to use the master version, and whatever the dangers, the practice is almost completely without problems. A "bleeding edge" ELPA would merely make that simpler. I regularly use both the git master version of Org and the ELPA version of Org, and I do extensive elisp coding that interacts with both, and I do not remember a problem that could be described as "foot-shooting". Any significant problems in a bleeding edge version would be resolved the same way they are in the master version of git, only with the solution packaged, delivered, and installed by the next day, except automatically. It is easy to imagine someone else unofficially packaging the bleeding edge version and making it available via ELPA, and hard to imagine that resulting in significant problems. Melpa is loaded with bleeding edge versions, but the problems I hear or see from it are very rare. Also, as noted before, if someone is unhappy with the "bleeding edge" version, switching back would be easy. > On the other hand, it would be nice to have more regular releases from > master to maint. AFAIK the last one was a year and a half ago (Org > 8.2). However, this has traditionally required a lot of effort from > Bastien and others, so it=E2=80=99s not a simple case of =E2=80=9Cwishing= will make it > so=E2=80=9D. Very true, and no doubt there are benefits to having a "stable" version available. However, not providing the "bleeding edge" version on ELPA is not without cost. The mailing list is littered with responses from Nicolas saying "that problem has been fixed in the master version ...." One last thought: I think it would be better to name the versions "stable" and "unstable", to match the meanings established by Debian. All the best, Terry -- T.F. Torrey