Re: package and testing rant (was Re: package.el, auto-installation, and auto-removal)

[Nic Ferrier]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

> No: many (most?) savannah gnu projects don't require copyright
> assignments.  Also, when maintainers disappear, it's rather
> problematic to get bugs fixed.

A GNU project is a GNU project, is my understanding. savannah can host
non-gnu or GNU. GNU projects all need (C) assignment. You can't be GNU
without that.

Maybe that changed? But that's the way I recall it from when savannah
was setup and I was involved with the Java stuff.


I don't see why it's any more easy to get bugs fixed. If a maintainer
for a GNU project disappears there's a regular course of action to chase
them up or hand off control. Isn't there? There used to be.


> That depends on what you compare it with.  You're comparing it to having
> your package on some random Git server somewhere, but if you compare it
> to having your package in Emacs itself, then it's much more "your"
> source tree, and it has fewer constraints.

But my comparison is what most authors will experience.

Unless you're going to only talk to authors who already contribute to
gnu emacs.


>> You're also inviting people to break the Makefile because they want
>> their own build.
>
> I don't know what you mean by that.

I mean that people who want to have an odd build will attempt to make
the Makefile do it and then break it.


>> You're also inviting people to check in non-working code.
>
> How?  Are you referring to "distributing tarballs without testing
> them"?

Yes. But also, my repo is mine. We have to have discipline around the
emacs source tree and I think everyone undestands that's shared. But the
expectation surely would be that my branch of the elpa.git is mine.


>> I think that's my main point.  There should be a package archive where
>> authors send their "done" packages.
>
> I'd accept patches to the GNU ELPA scripts which lets authors do that.
> Note that I've heard comments from other authors who find the "just bump
> the version number" way of making a release to be really handy, so
> I wouldn't want to force people to make their own archive.

Really handy vs safe is something I think should err on the side of
safe.


>> I mean: You're doing something very weird. Why?
>
> I guess I just don't know what's weird about it.

Maybe you don't know enough about software ecosystems?


Nic