Release Org 9.4.2

Release Org 9.4.2

[Bastien]

Hi all,

I've released Org 9.4.2, a bugfix release.

This version was merged with the emacs-27 branch:
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/commit/?h=emacs-27

Enjoy!

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Pankaj Jangid]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> I've released Org 9.4.2, a bugfix release.
>
> This version was merged with the emacs-27 branch:

This is the only code that goes into stable branch first and then into
‘master’. Probably we need tweak the process a bit.

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Bastien]

Hi Pankaj,

Pankaj Jangid <pankaj@codeisgreat.org> writes:

> Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> I've released Org 9.4.2, a bugfix release.
>>
>> This version was merged with the emacs-27 branch:
>
> This is the only code that goes into stable branch first and then into
> ‘master’. Probably we need tweak the process a bit.

Sorry, I don't understand your concern here.  What should be done
differently?

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Pankaj Jangid]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

>>> I've released Org 9.4.2, a bugfix release.
>>>
>>> This version was merged with the emacs-27 branch:
>>
>> This is the only code that goes into stable branch first and then into
>> ‘master’. Probably we need tweak the process a bit.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand your concern here.  What should be done
> differently?

Sorry for not being elaborate. Actually, I had posted serveral days ago
in another thread as well that probably we should consider emacs-master
for the active development of Org.

I like testing Emacs on the trunk and I ‘git pull’ and ‘make bootstrap’
daily and use it without any external packages. This is just to make
sure that any external package is not the cause for what appears to be
an Emacs bug.

I can certainly add latest Org by adding it to the package-archives. But
right now there is no point. I like to be on the bleeding edge. But I
also like to contribute at least by testing the next major release of
Emacs. And I am not sure whether the latest snapshot of Org from
https://orgmode.org/elpa will be part of next major release of Emacs,
whenever that happens.

Org will also benefit from the wider testing if the incremental changes
are part of everyone’s daily build of emacs-master.

In addition to master, we can release versions via GNU ELPA. That way
users won’t have to tweak their package-archives. Core packages should
not require making changes to package-archives.

I know you are overloaded with tasks at present. So I am not asking that
we do these things rightaway. But somewhere down the line Emacs and Org
development must converge.

Hope to see Org 9.4.2 in master soon. :-)

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Eric S Fraga]

On Monday, 14 Dec 2020 at 20:49, Pankaj Jangid wrote:
> I like testing Emacs on the trunk and I ‘git pull’ and ‘make bootstrap’
> daily and use it without any external packages. This is just to make
> sure that any external package is not the cause for what appears to be
> an Emacs bug.
>
> I can certainly add latest Org by adding it to the package-archives. 

Or you could track org development from git just as you are tracking
Emacs.  That's what I do: any time I build the most recent Emacs (maybe
every 2-3 weeks), I also build org.

-- 
: Eric S Fraga via Emacs 28.0.50, Org release_9.4-160-g7c8dce

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Pankaj Jangid]

Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> writes:

> On Monday, 14 Dec 2020 at 20:49, Pankaj Jangid wrote:
>> I like testing Emacs on the trunk and I ‘git pull’ and ‘make bootstrap’
>> daily and use it without any external packages. This is just to make
>> sure that any external package is not the cause for what appears to be
>> an Emacs bug.
>>
>> I can certainly add latest Org by adding it to the package-archives. 
>
> Or you could track org development from git just as you are tracking
> Emacs.  That's what I do: any time I build the most recent Emacs (maybe
> every 2-3 weeks), I also build org.

May be that I am not explaining it well. Let me put it in a question
format. It is possible that this has been discussed and I appologise for
my ignorance.

My question is/are: (1) Why Org is developed outside Emacs, given that
it is a core/built-in package. (2) Are there other packages that follow
the same process?

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Bastien]

Hi Pankaj,

Pankaj Jangid <pankaj@codeisgreat.org> writes:

> My question is/are: (1) Why Org is developed outside Emacs, given that
> it is a core/built-in package.

When Org's development switched to Git (13 years ago, from memory),
the release cycle was very short.  Way shorter than the release cycle
of Emacs.  Also, the process for accepting new code contributors was
lighter, even when we asked them to sign the FSF copyright assignment.

In this context, having a separate Git repo was a huge plus, and Org
was not yet included of Emacs.

Then Org became part of Emacs, which was a very important move.

But still, using a separate repo and a separate mailing list was key
in being free to progress at our own pace, which was still quite fast.

Today, the release cycle of Org is longer and that of Emacs shorter.
So yes, it could make sense to envision a destiny similar to Gnus:
Gnus is now developed in Emacs and Org could also be developed in
Emacs.

But (1) it is not only *our* decision, it's also in the hands of the
Emacs maintainers, which may think otherwise; (2) all the consequences
need to be considered, as it is a sensible move; (3) I am on the verge
of stepping down as a maintainer, so it is not a good time for me to
push into a direction or another.

> (2) Are there other packages that follow the same process?

I don't know.  It could be useful to compare Org situation to other
packages but at the same time, Org is quite peculiar.

Anyway, I don't think now is the right time to consider this move, as
there are many more things to achieve. I suggest we discuss this again
later next year.

Thanks,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Daniele Nicolodi]

On 15/12/2020 14:58, Pankaj Jangid wrote:
> Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> writes:
> 
>> On Monday, 14 Dec 2020 at 20:49, Pankaj Jangid wrote:
>>> I like testing Emacs on the trunk and I ‘git pull’ and ‘make bootstrap’
>>> daily and use it without any external packages. This is just to make
>>> sure that any external package is not the cause for what appears to be
>>> an Emacs bug.
>>>
>>> I can certainly add latest Org by adding it to the package-archives. 
>>
>> Or you could track org development from git just as you are tracking
>> Emacs.  That's what I do: any time I build the most recent Emacs (maybe
>> every 2-3 weeks), I also build org.
> 
> May be that I am not explaining it well. Let me put it in a question
> format. It is possible that this has been discussed and I appologise for
> my ignorance.
> 
> My question is/are: (1) Why Org is developed outside Emacs, given that
> it is a core/built-in package. (2) Are there other packages that follow
> the same process?

AFAIK also cc-mode is developed in a dedicate repository.

From an Emacs development point of view there is the desire to move more
packages that are now included in the core to ELPA and assemble Emacs
releases from these. This will allow packages to have independent
releases and users to update them more frequently than the pace of Emacs
releases. In this process, moving more packages to separate git
repositories would be natural. Thus, the idea would be remove the need
for syncing the org and cc-mode codebases to the Emacs repository rather
than moving the development of these packages to the Emacs git.

Cheers,
Dan

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Pankaj Jangid]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

>> My question is/are: (1) Why Org is developed outside Emacs, given that
>> it is a core/built-in package.
>
> When Org's development switched to Git (13 years ago, from memory),
> the release cycle was very short.  Way shorter than the release cycle
> of Emacs.  Also, the process for accepting new code contributors was
> lighter, even when we asked them to sign the FSF copyright assignment.
>
> In this context, having a separate Git repo was a huge plus, and Org
> was not yet included of Emacs.
>
> Then Org became part of Emacs, which was a very important move.
>
> But still, using a separate repo and a separate mailing list was key
> in being free to progress at our own pace, which was still quite fast.
>
> Today, the release cycle of Org is longer and that of Emacs shorter.
> So yes, it could make sense to envision a destiny similar to Gnus:
> Gnus is now developed in Emacs and Org could also be developed in
> Emacs.

Thanks for writing this. This explains everything.

> But (1) it is not only *our* decision, it's also in the hands of the
> Emacs maintainers, which may think otherwise; (2) all the consequences
> need to be considered, as it is a sensible move; (3) I am on the verge
> of stepping down as a maintainer, so it is not a good time for me to
> push into a direction or another.

I sensed (3) when I saw an email (last month I guess) about assimilating
parts of Org into Emacs. While that is a good idea. But I don’t have a
very good feeling about you leaving. You have contributed so much. You
have maintained it so well.

I can understand how it feels when people complain about features. And
sometimes they blame the maintainers for some specific product
directions. But it is bound to happen when they are also attached to the
product. I hope these things have not shaped up your decision. It
happens in a closely knit family.

> Anyway, I don't think now is the right time to consider this move, as
> there are many more things to achieve. I suggest we discuss this again
> later next year.

Yes. This is endless. We’ll continue this...

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Pankaj Jangid]

Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net> writes:

>> My question is/are: (1) Why Org is developed outside Emacs, given that
>> it is a core/built-in package. (2) Are there other packages that follow
>> the same process?
>
> AFAIK also cc-mode is developed in a dedicate repository.
>
> From an Emacs development point of view there is the desire to move more
> packages that are now included in the core to ELPA and assemble Emacs
> releases from these. This will allow packages to have independent
> releases and users to update them more frequently than the pace of Emacs
> releases. In this process, moving more packages to separate git
> repositories would be natural. Thus, the idea would be remove the need
> for syncing the org and cc-mode codebases to the Emacs repository rather
> than moving the development of these packages to the Emacs git.

Yes. This seems to be a good direction. The news about new elpa.git is
really good. Probably that will settle all these things.

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Bastien]

Pankaj Jangid <pankaj@codeisgreat.org> writes:

>> But (1) it is not only *our* decision, it's also in the hands of the
>> Emacs maintainers, which may think otherwise; (2) all the consequences
>> need to be considered, as it is a sensible move; (3) I am on the verge
>> of stepping down as a maintainer, so it is not a good time for me to
>> push into a direction or another.
>
> I sensed (3) when I saw an email (last month I guess) about assimilating
> parts of Org into Emacs. While that is a good idea. But I don’t have a
> very good feeling about you leaving. You have contributed so much. You
> have maintained it so well.
>
> I can understand how it feels when people complain about features. And
> sometimes they blame the maintainers for some specific product
> directions. But it is bound to happen when they are also attached to the
> product. I hope these things have not shaped up your decision. It
> happens in a closely knit family.

Thanks a lot for the kind words, appreciated.

Be reassured, the fact that I shall soon step down has nothing to do
with the community: in fact, the community is what kept me motivated
for nearly ten years now!

This decision is a simple combination of me not having enough time
(which can lead to frustrating situations for other contributors) and
the fact that I'm confident about Org's future.

>> Anyway, I don't think now is the right time to consider this move, as
>> there are many more things to achieve. I suggest we discuss this again
>> later next year.
>
> Yes. This is endless. We’ll continue this...

... but I'm very receptive to the real questions: how can we expose
the latest Org to more testers? how can we recruit more contributors?

If at some point developing Org within Emacs seems to be part of a
good solution, I'll be all for it.  I definitely prefer this scenario
to the one where Org is kicked out Emacs core and moved to a separate,
not-installed-by-default, GNU ELPA package.

Best,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Pankaj Jangid]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> Be reassured, the fact that I shall soon step down has nothing to do
> with the community: in fact, the community is what kept me motivated
> for nearly ten years now!
>
> This decision is a simple combination of me not having enough time
> (which can lead to frustrating situations for other contributors) and
> the fact that I'm confident about Org's future.

Yes. I am sure too.

>> Yes. This is endless. We’ll continue this...
>
> ... but I'm very receptive to the real questions: how can we expose
> the latest Org to more testers? how can we recruit more contributors?

Org is a big beast now. I am also of the opinion that its parts must be
maintained separately. Last few months when you are assigning things
from ob-*, I was observing it and thinking - may be that is the way
forward.

> If at some point developing Org within Emacs seems to be part of a
> good solution, I'll be all for it.  I definitely prefer this scenario
> to the one where Org is kicked out Emacs core and moved to a separate,
> not-installed-by-default, GNU ELPA package.

Not sure, how feasible is that (move to a separate
non-installed-by-default). I am not thinking on these lines. I am hoping
only for the best.

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[TEC]

Hello. I just have a few cents I'd like to add.

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> Thanks a lot for the kind words, appreciated.

You deserve them! :)

> ... but I'm very receptive to the real questions: how can we expose
> the latest Org to more testers? how can we recruit more contributors?

I actually have a few thoughts on this.  I'm afraid that I don't think
Org/Emacs are doing a good job of being accessible to younger
individuals who have never used a ML / sent patches before (I should
know, I'm one such individual, and the lack of familiarity was a
significant deterrent). Whether a ML is a more efficient way of doing
things or not ultimately doesn't matter in this regard, because it's
simply not something I or many others are used to.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for getting rid of the ML and
jumping on GitHub etc. :P

I do however think we can do better in serving younger (potential)
contributors, without degrading the time-tested ML experience.

I'm doing a little investigation on this front, and hopefully will have
something to start a thread about in a few weeks :)

All the best,

Timothy.

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Gustav Wikström]

> From: Emacs-orgmode <emacs-orgmode-bounces+gustav=whil.se@gnu.org> on behalf of TEC <tecosaur@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 08:14
> To: Bastien
> Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Pankaj Jangid
> Subject: Re: Release Org 9.4.2
> 
> ...
> 
> I actually have a few thoughts on this.  I'm afraid that I don't think
> Org/Emacs are doing a good job of being accessible to younger
> individuals who have never used a ML / sent patches before (I should
> know, I'm one such individual, and the lack of familiarity was a
> significant deterrent). Whether a ML is a more efficient way of doing
> things or not ultimately doesn't matter in this regard, because it's
> simply not something I or many others are used to.
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for getting rid of the ML and
> jumping on GitHub etc. :P

But to be fair, the collaboration features of GitHub surely would be a
BIG net positive if the goal is to attract contributions and gain a
bigger mindshare. That together with an open collective funding model
of some sort. Because let's be fair. This is a hobby project and it
would be cool if it could be something else at least for someone!

Gustav

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Eric S Fraga]

On Wednesday, 16 Dec 2020 at 13:04, Gustav Wikström wrote:
> But to be fair, the collaboration features of GitHub surely would be a
> BIG net positive if the goal is to attract contributions and gain a
> bigger mindshare. 

Not necessarily.  Some of us dislike web based tools intensely, in fact
anything that does not work well in Emacs ;-).

In practice, I will not participate in projects that, for instance, use
slack or discourse or ... Requiring the use of github for interaction
would lead to a reduction in the (albeit rather small) contributions I
make to this project.  A mailing list (or nntp) plus git is perfect for
my working methods.

> This is a hobby project and it would be cool if it could be something
> else at least for someone!

Why cool?  What's cool is that so many contribute, in a wide range of
ways, without some financial recompense!

-- 
: Eric S Fraga via Emacs 28.0.50, Org release_9.4.2-143-gc822c8

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Gustav Wikström]

> From: Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 14:49
> To: Gustav Wikström
> Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Release Org 9.4.2
> 
> ...
> 
> Why cool?  What's cool is that so many contribute, in a wide range of
> ways, without some financial recompense!

I mean, yeah - it's already cool! No arguing there. Just saying that
"already cool" doesn't have to be "cool enough"! It's not binary. I
for one wouldn't feel sorry if we (the world) could collect resources
to make working with Org mode a financially viable way of life for
someone. Even though relying on contributions is an insecure way of
getting income, we all need an influx of resources (unless you've
already accumulated a wealth somehow). Having some who could wake up
in the morning, open the computer and do daytime work for Org would
make at least me smile. Ofc, with money comes other problems etc etc.

Kind regards
Gustav

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Eric S Fraga]

On Wednesday, 16 Dec 2020 at 14:11, Gustav Wikström wrote:
> I for one wouldn't feel sorry if we (the world) could collect
> resources to make working with Org mode a financially viable way of
> life for someone. 

I think that's already possible, or least it was with the old web site:
there is/was a patreon link if I remember correctly.

-- 
: Eric S Fraga via Emacs 28.0.50, Org release_9.4.2-143-gc822c8

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Pankaj Jangid]

Gustav Wikström <gustav@whil.se> writes:

> But to be fair, the collaboration features of GitHub surely would be a
> BIG net positive if the goal is to attract contributions and gain a
> bigger mindshare. That together with an open collective funding model
> of some sort. Because let's be fair. This is a hobby project and it
> would be cool if it could be something else at least for someone!

When I receive a PR on Github, I pull the developer’s branch in a
local-branch and then review, and then merge locally and then push to
main.

Github automatically closes the PR.

I really don’t want to visit a website to review code, when I have
Emacs.

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Gustav Wikström]

________________________________________
> From: Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 15:50
> To: Gustav Wikström
> Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Release Org 9.4.2
> 
> On Wednesday, 16 Dec 2020 at 14:11, Gustav Wikström wrote:
> > I for one wouldn't feel sorry if we (the world) could collect
> > resources to make working with Org mode a financially viable way of
> > life for someone.
> 
> I think that's already possible, or least it was with the old web site:
> there is/was a patreon link if I remember correctly.

True, which is good. But it's personal. To Bastien who already have
signaled that he's signing of. I frankly don't know where to put my
financial contributions right now. I've offered other contributors to
sign up for a similar patreon to recieve some contributions but they
have declined, due to what I understand as a pressure for delivery
(even though I've clarified that at least I have no expectations, just
want to contribute for the already done valuable work).

It is my believe that Org would benefit from a counter that would "tic
up" even if no one collects the money. Like it or not, money has an
effect. Better to allocate it to open source work than anything else! Or?

Anyhow, maybe the next maintainer(s?) who come after Bastien sees this
and realizes that there at the least is around 5-20$/m laying in wait
from this particular source.

Regards
Gustav

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Loris Bennett]

Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> writes:

> On Wednesday, 16 Dec 2020 at 13:04, Gustav Wikström wrote:
>> But to be fair, the collaboration features of GitHub surely would be a
>> BIG net positive if the goal is to attract contributions and gain a
>> bigger mindshare. 
>
> Not necessarily.  Some of us dislike web based tools intensely, in fact
> anything that does not work well in Emacs ;-).
>
> In practice, I will not participate in projects that, for instance, use
> slack or discourse or ... Requiring the use of github for interaction
> would lead to a reduction in the (albeit rather small) contributions I
> make to this project.  A mailing list (or nntp) plus git is perfect for
> my working methods.

But even if a project is hosted on GitHub, you can still interact with
it just via Emacs, it is still Git after all.

One project I have made minor contributions to is EasyBuild, a framework
for managing the building and installation of (mainly) scientific
software, which is hosted on GitHub:

  https://github.com/easybuilders/easybuild

However, I can interact with it via Magit, and even if I don't use
Emacs, the project has command-line tools which allow the creation of a
pull request without the me having to know anything about GitHub or even
git:

  https://easybuild.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Integration_with_GitHub.html#submitting-pull-requests-new-pr

Obviously the EasyBuild people have put quite a lot of work into making
this possible and it is mainly to allow people to contribute
self-contained "recipes" for building particular pieces of software,
rather than work on the main code of the framework.

To be honest, last time I tried, responding to comments on pull-requests
didn't work so well via Emacs, so unfortunately I ended up having to
using the web-interface.

But on the other hand, they also have a mailing list, so there is
something for everyone ;-)

Cheers,

Loris

>> This is a hobby project and it would be cool if it could be something
>> else at least for someone!
>
> Why cool?  What's cool is that so many contribute, in a wide range of
> ways, without some financial recompense!
-- 
This signature is currently under construction.

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Tim Cross]

Gustav Wikström <gustav@whil.se> writes:

>> From: Emacs-orgmode <emacs-orgmode-bounces+gustav=whil.se@gnu.org> on behalf of TEC <tecosaur@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 08:14
>> To: Bastien
>> Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Pankaj Jangid
>> Subject: Re: Release Org 9.4.2
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I actually have a few thoughts on this.  I'm afraid that I don't think
>> Org/Emacs are doing a good job of being accessible to younger
>> individuals who have never used a ML / sent patches before (I should
>> know, I'm one such individual, and the lack of familiarity was a
>> significant deterrent). Whether a ML is a more efficient way of doing
>> things or not ultimately doesn't matter in this regard, because it's
>> simply not something I or many others are used to.
>>
>> Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for getting rid of the ML and
>> jumping on GitHub etc. :P
>
> But to be fair, the collaboration features of GitHub surely would be a
> BIG net positive if the goal is to attract contributions and gain a
> bigger mindshare. That together with an open collective funding model
> of some sort. Because let's be fair. This is a hobby project and it
> would be cool if it could be something else at least for someone!
>

Github is not an option here. The problem is, github encourages the use
of proprietary, non-free software, which conflicts with the GNU's
primary goal of software freedom. As Org mode is a GNU project, it
cannot use Github in any fashion which would encourage the use of github
interfaces that require/encourage the use of non-free software, which
unfortunately, key parts of their web UI does.

With respect to providing a different forum which might e more familiar
or more comfortable to younger users who are not as comfortable with a
mailing list, I don't know what the answer is. By definition, being an
old user who is out of step with the trends of the young, I an other old
timers probably don't have the necessary familiarity with modern trends
to do anything here. If young users need/want a different forum, they
need to take on the responsibility for that initiative. The only
restriction is that the forum must fit with the philosophy and guidelines
of the FSF with respect to free (libre) software and not just 'open
source'.

Personally, I think on-line communities went backwards after the decline
of USERNET newsgroups.
--
Tim Cross

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Tim Cross]

Loris Bennett <loris.bennett@fu-berlin.de> writes:

> Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> writes:
>
>> On Wednesday, 16 Dec 2020 at 13:04, Gustav Wikström wrote:
>>> But to be fair, the collaboration features of GitHub surely would be a
>>> BIG net positive if the goal is to attract contributions and gain a
>>> bigger mindshare.
>>
>> Not necessarily.  Some of us dislike web based tools intensely, in fact
>> anything that does not work well in Emacs ;-).
>>
>> In practice, I will not participate in projects that, for instance, use
>> slack or discourse or ... Requiring the use of github for interaction
>> would lead to a reduction in the (albeit rather small) contributions I
>> make to this project.  A mailing list (or nntp) plus git is perfect for
>> my working methods.
>
> But even if a project is hosted on GitHub, you can still interact with
> it just via Emacs, it is still Git after all.
>
> One project I have made minor contributions to is EasyBuild, a framework
> for managing the building and installation of (mainly) scientific
> software, which is hosted on GitHub:
>
>   https://github.com/easybuilders/easybuild
>
> However, I can interact with it via Magit, and even if I don't use
> Emacs, the project has command-line tools which allow the creation of a
> pull request without the me having to know anything about GitHub or even
> git:
>
>   https://easybuild.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Integration_with_GitHub.html#submitting-pull-requests-new-pr
>
> Obviously the EasyBuild people have put quite a lot of work into making
> this possible and it is mainly to allow people to contribute
> self-contained "recipes" for building particular pieces of software,
> rather than work on the main code of the framework.
>
> To be honest, last time I tried, responding to comments on pull-requests
> didn't work so well via Emacs, so unfortunately I ended up having to
> using the web-interface.
>
> But on the other hand, they also have a mailing list, so there is
> something for everyone ;-)
>

A lot of the key Git features are available via command line and other
tools. This is how I always interact with Github repositories.

Unfortunately, many other aspects of Github are not available via
command line or are only available in a severely crippled manner, so
people are forced to use the web UI which has components and
functionality built o technology which is in conflict with the FSF and
GNU philosophy, guidelines and key goals. Some people have been working
on Github to get changes which would change this situation, but until
they do, it simply is not an option.

The BIG problem with many of the alternative 'forum' technologies is
that very few of them use free software. Some of them may be open
source, but that is not the same as free (libre) software. The other
problem is many of them force the use of a web UI, which many, including
myself, don't like and which rarely works well in Emacs itself
(primarily due to the reliance on Javascript).

--
Tim Cross

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Eric S Fraga]

On Wednesday, 16 Dec 2020 at 16:13, Loris Bennett wrote:
> But even if a project is hosted on GitHub, you can still interact with
> it just via Emacs, it is still Git after all.

Sure, and I do use it this way, but I had the impression that it was the
non-git aspects that were being put forward as being somehow helpful.  I
could be wrong.

-- 
: Eric S Fraga via Emacs 28.0.50, Org release_9.4.2-143-gc822c8

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Greg Minshall]

Eric,

> Sure, and I do use it this way, but I had the impression that it was the
> non-git aspects that were being put forward as being somehow helpful.  I
> could be wrong.

i'm not a git-spert.  but, the "pull requests" mechanism and "issues"
(but reports), are maybe bits of git*.com that people like?  (i find
them useful myself.)

Greg

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Samuel Wales]

i just wanted to say thanks to everybody who maintains org.

somebody said a counter for donations might be useful even if nobody
collects it.  i am not able to follow this discussion closely for
health reasons, but one possibility, which you can reject if you like,
but which i mention because nobody has mentioned it yet,  is to have
that counter go to e.g. biomedical research or another good cause.
then org becomes associated with "help find a treatment for (insert
disease]"or similar.

i know from the other end [viz. biomedical research desperately
needed] that such things can be used for very good purposes very
efficiently.  the scientists eat pizza, not fancy food, and they think
hard about making their assays efficient etc.

and i know that it can be motivating to donate to such things.  to me
at least.  i could suggest a few that are likely highly relevant to
long covid and one or more of my own serious medical issues that are
not getting adequate research.  or maintainers could choose.


On 12/17/20, Greg Minshall <minshall@umich.edu> wrote:
> Eric,
>
>> Sure, and I do use it this way, but I had the impression that it was the
>> non-git aspects that were being put forward as being somehow helpful.  I
>> could be wrong.
>
> i'm not a git-spert.  but, the "pull requests" mechanism and "issues"
> (but reports), are maybe bits of git*.com that people like?  (i find
> them useful myself.)
>
> Greg
>
>


-- 
The Kafka Pandemic

Please learn what misopathy is.
https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-some-diseases-are-wronged.html

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Asa Zeren]

Have people looked at sourcehut (https://sourcehut.org)? While it's still in
alpha, and so has a number of rough edges, it seems pretty promising. Sourcehut
is trying to build a platform with accessible web uis that is backed by mailing
lists. Just annother option to consider, though there is no urgency to move from
the current situtation.

--Asa

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Eric S Fraga]

On Friday, 18 Dec 2020 at 16:49, Asa Zeren wrote:
> Have people looked at sourcehut

Looks interesting and seems to work fine with eww (but haven't stressed
test this) which is a bonus.

-- 
: Eric S Fraga via Emacs 28.0.50, Org release_9.4.3-150-g6b83c6

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Lennart C. Karssen]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2170 bytes --]

On 16-12-2020 19:41, Tim Cross wrote:
> 
> 
> Github is not an option here. The problem is, github encourages the use
> of proprietary, non-free software, which conflicts with the GNU's
> primary goal of software freedom. As Org mode is a GNU project, it
> cannot use Github in any fashion which would encourage the use of github
> interfaces that require/encourage the use of non-free software, which
> unfortunately, key parts of their web UI does.

I'm not an expert in web technologies and their licenses, but given that
Debian, KDE and Gnome use Gitlab [1,2] this Github alternative may be an
option to consider too. The open core of Gitlab is licensed under the
MIT license [1] (which may or may not be acceptable for this community...).

I personally use Gitlab both via the web interface and in Emacs via
Magit's forge [4]. So far, this works well for my daily workflow. I
guess the 'young ones' using Github would be equally happy with Gitlab.


My two cents,

Lennart.

[1] https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/
[2] https://salsa.debian.org/public
[4] https://github.com/magit/forge

> 
> With respect to providing a different forum which might e more familiar
> or more comfortable to younger users who are not as comfortable with a
> mailing list, I don't know what the answer is. By definition, being an
> old user who is out of step with the trends of the young, I an other old
> timers probably don't have the necessary familiarity with modern trends
> to do anything here. If young users need/want a different forum, they
> need to take on the responsibility for that initiative. The only
> restriction is that the forum must fit with the philosophy and guidelines
> of the FSF with respect to free (libre) software and not just 'open
> source'.
> 
> Personally, I think on-line communities went backwards after the decline
> of USERNET newsgroups.
> --
> Tim Cross
> 

-- 
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
L.C. Karssen
's-Hertogenbosch
The Netherlands

lennart@karssen.org
http://blog.karssen.org
GPG key ID: A88F554A
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[TEC]

I've been following this conversation, and I'm glad to see it happening.

However, we've really stayed quite far from the subject of our emails :P

I think this conversation deserves it's own thread, perhaps something
like "Org's development forge".

--
Timothy

Lennart C. Karssen <lennart@karssen.org> writes:

> I'm not an expert in web technologies and their licenses, but given that
> Debian, KDE and Gnome use Gitlab [1,2] this Github alternative may be an
> option to consider too. The open core of Gitlab is licensed under the
> MIT license [1] (which may or may not be acceptable for this community...).

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Bastien]

TEC <tecosaur@gmail.com> writes:

> I think this conversation deserves it's own thread, perhaps something
> like "Org's development forge".

Please don't open this topic, as there is no plan here.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Jean Louis]

* Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> [2020-12-22 19:20]:
> TEC <tecosaur@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > I think this conversation deserves it's own thread, perhaps something
> > like "Org's development forge".
> 
> Please don't open this topic, as there is no plan here.

There need not be any official plan. But why not.

Org mode is all about enthusiasm.

It sounds so much better to keep Org packages in one place and attract
people to GNU project rather than having Org packages anyway spread
around like on Github where people need to sign up by using
proprietary Javascript and otherwise get trapped by their eye candy
and proprietary services.

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[TEC]

Gustav Wikström <gustav@whil.se> writes:

> It is my believe that Org would benefit from a counter that would "tic
> up" even if no one collects the money. Like it or not, money has an
> effect. Better to allocate it to open source work than anything else! Or?

I've never used it, but could something like https://opencollective.com
be good for this?

Just a thought,

Timothy.

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[Gustav Wikström]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 812 bytes --]

Yes, that looks like a good option in my books.

Look for example at how logseq has it set up. (https://opencollective.com/logseq)

Best
Gustav
________________________________
From: TEC <tecosaur@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 10:42:50 AM
To: Gustav Wikström <gustav@whil.se>
Cc: Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk>; emacs-orgmode@gnu.org <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Release Org 9.4.2


Gustav Wikström <gustav@whil.se> writes:

> It is my believe that Org would benefit from a counter that would "tic
> up" even if no one collects the money. Like it or not, money has an
> effect. Better to allocate it to open source work than anything else! Or?

I've never used it, but could something like https://opencollective.com
be good for this?

Just a thought,

Timothy.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2003 bytes --]

Re: Release Org 9.4.2

[TRS-80]

On 2020-12-18 16:49, Asa Zeren wrote:
> Have people looked at sourcehut (https://sourcehut.org)? While it's
> still in alpha, and so has a number of rough edges, it seems pretty
> promising. Sourcehut is trying to build a platform with accessible web
> uis that is backed by mailing lists. Just annother option to consider,
> though there is no urgency to move from the current situtation.
> 
> --Asa

I have been using Sourcehut for about a month and loving it so far![0]

I searched for long time for a git forge I could live with.  Most of
popular options nowadays seem either proprietary software or typical
sluggish castles of JavaScript (or both!) as is so much of the "modern"
web.

So, when I finally discovered Sourcehut (which is neither of the above
mentioned things) it was like a breath of fresh air in comparison!  I
really appreciate what Drew is trying to do over there.

I even ironed out one or two of those "rough edges" getting some Orgmode
export (to sr.ht supported Markdown) stuff working a little better (and
I continue to do so).  I don't mind at all (in fact rather enjoy)
contributing to actual no-bs Free Software platform!

Come join me!  Come on in, the water is fine... :)

Cheers,
TRS-80

[0] https://sr.ht/~trs-80/