From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: Re: Sync up the org in emacs master to org maint branch? Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 15:34:26 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87k29d7zvw.fsf@engster.org> <87fuk08i01.fsf@engster.org> <87d1f36xnc.fsf@engster.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: (John Wiegley's message of "Thu, 02 Feb 2017 09:09:54 -0500") 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 , Kaushal Modi , Phillip Lord , emacs-org list , Emacs developers List-Id: emacs-orgmode.gnu.org John Wiegley writes: > OK, to continue the analogy, what is the right answer? Technically it > doesn't seem as though Django belongs there, even if culturally it > sounds hard to separate. Should it stay indefinitely, or should the > development model change? If somebody genuinely offered to take over, say, rmail, and maintain it separately, and handle bug reports, and, like, be the maintainer, that would be a help. Great, go ahead, and put the resulting thing in ELPA. But nobody has made that offer? Or have they, and I just missed it? I fail to see how just shuffling rmail from Emacs to ELPA helps us in any way with the maintainership. Instead it creates an extra burden on us, since we (in addition to all the normal maintainership) will also have to consider Emacs version compatibility. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no