From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carsten Dominik Subject: Re: Remove Org from Emacs repository? Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 14:20:49 +0100 Message-ID: References: <871sx5pp6u.fsf@laptoptop.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c1a17b225695e0543eead72 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58793) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cIbOs-0001ZD-BJ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 08:21:15 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cIbOr-0003QC-0c for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 08:21:14 -0500 Received: from mail-lf0-x244.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c07::244]:36141) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cIbOq-0003Mu-OE for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 08:21:12 -0500 Received: by mail-lf0-x244.google.com with SMTP id o20so5164372lfg.3 for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 05:21:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <871sx5pp6u.fsf@laptoptop.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> 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" To: aaermolov@gmail.com Cc: "emacs-orgmode@gnu.org" , Reuben Thomas --94eb2c1a17b225695e0543eead72 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Dear all, I'd hate to see Org removed from Emacs. It took a lot of work to get it in, and I believe that the vast majority of Emacs users does not install packages. For a newbie to get to Emacs and to be able to open a .org file is a big plus. So my vote goes toward keeping it in. Carsten On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 10:22 AM, wrote: > 2 cents from me... > > Besides I continuously see many users praising Emacs just for Org > presence (they even may be completely non-technical users), I'm > personally think Org may be removed from Emacs distribution because: > > 1) all Reuben's argument seems sane; > 2) there are situations when someone wants particular version of Org, > and it may be not tne one bundled with Emacs. In this case someone > should perform extra steps to ensure things are going the right way. > When Org will be available only from ELPA, it will be SPOT for such > cases. > > Reuben Thomas writes: > > > Now that Emacs has had package.el for some years, and Org is installable > > directly from GNU ELPA, would it be a good idea to remove Org from > Emacs's > > source repository? > > > > The current situation is left over from before Emacs had package.el, and > I > > see no compelling reason to keep it. Org is too big and distinct to be > > swallowed by Emacs; it doesn't make much sense to keep its current > half-in, > > half-out state; so logically it seems sensible to take it out. > > > > I am asking this question from an Org point of view; I will ask the Emacs > > maintainers separately for their perspective. > > > > I think it would benefit Emacs too, as there would be less code to > maintain > > (even though Org is quasi-external at present, it still has to build > > successfully as part of an Emacs build), and the Emacs distribution would > > be slimmer for non-Org users. > > > > Of course, Emacs "distributions" would still be able to include Org > > out-of-the box if they wished. > > > > -- > > http://rrt.sc3d.org > --94eb2c1a17b225695e0543eead72 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear all,

I'd hate to see Org remov= ed from Emacs.=C2=A0 It took a lot of work to get it in, and I believe that= the vast majority of Emacs users does not install packages.=C2=A0 For a ne= wbie to get to Emacs and to be able to open a .org file is a big plus.=C2= =A0 So my vote goes toward keeping it in.

Carsten<= /div>

On Sun= , Dec 18, 2016 at 10:22 AM, <aaermolov@gmail.com> wrote:<= br>
2 cents from me...

Besides I continuously see many users praising Emacs just for Org
presence (they even may be completely non-technical users), I'm
personally think Org may be removed from Emacs distribution because:

1) all Reuben's argument seems sane;
2) there are situations when someone wants particular version of Org,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0and it may be not tne one bundled with Emacs. In this case som= eone
=C2=A0 =C2=A0should perform extra steps to ensure things are going the righ= t way.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0When Org will be available only from ELPA, it will be SPOT for= such cases.

Reuben Thomas <rrt@sc3d.org> writ= es:

> Now that Emacs has had package.el for some years, and Org is installab= le
> directly from GNU ELPA, would it be a good idea to remove Org from Ema= cs's
> source repository?
>
> The current situation is left over from before Emacs had package.el, a= nd I
> see no compelling reason to keep it. Org is too big and distinct to be=
> swallowed by Emacs; it doesn't make much sense to keep its current= half-in,
> half-out state; so logically it seems sensible to take it out.
>
> I am asking this question from an Org point of view; I will ask the Em= acs
> maintainers separately for their perspective.
>
> I think it would benefit Emacs too, as there would be less code to mai= ntain
> (even though Org is quasi-external at present, it still has to build > successfully as part of an Emacs build), and the Emacs distribution wo= uld
> be slimmer for non-Org users.
>
> Of course, Emacs "distributions" would still be able to incl= ude Org
> out-of-the box if they wished.
>
> --
> h= ttp://rrt.sc3d.org

--94eb2c1a17b225695e0543eead72--