On Sun, Oct 13 2024, Philip Kaludercic wrote:
> Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> writes:
>
>> Kristoffer Balintona wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you for the supportive words. In the past, I've been
>>> quite daunted by how different Emacs' development process is
>>> and how upstream Emacs feels more "official" than much
>>> smaller packages. You've been very encouraging, so I think
>>> I'll try and work on vtable sorting in the coming
>>> days/weeks. Thanks again.
>>
>> What one could do, is split emacs-devel into `emacs-devel' and
>> `emacs-project' (or maybe `emacs-lisp-project').
>>
>> emacs-project would then be supportive of anyone being active
>> with emacs at their own (any) level, emacs-devel OTOH there
>> some elitism would be expected since there it is only about
>> pushing code to core Emacs and associated packages.
>>
>> That said, some projects would eventually make their way all
>> the way into very central packages if not core Emacs.
>>
>> So it would more be trying to have a culture to fit
>> the purpose of the moment.
>>
>> Yes, where are you suppose to talk about your Emacs projects?
>> If they are about Emacs, they are not off-topic here, and also
>> not at #emacs, still, trust me, it can feel contrary to all
>> instinct to bring them up. So it should be the other way
>> around, we should have a place where this feel natural.
>
> Why don't you use help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, if you have questions? Or
> more generally a personal website? That is usually what people use for
> a personal blog.
Regarding using emacs-devel@gnu.org versus help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, I
think Emanuel's intent was most evident here:
So it would more be trying to have a culture to fit the purpose of
the moment.
I think the proposed emacs-lisp-project mailing list would be geared
for an audience coming from a different background, thereby perceiving
the mailing list as a foreign and intimidating place to "put yourself
out there." Newcomers and non-programmers (or both) are the first to
come to mind.
I think Emanuel hopes that another mailing list could cater towards
those who are as experienced in programming or serious in contributing
to Emacs (Emanuel mentioned how emacs-devel sometimes comes with a
degree of elitism--at least from the eyes of a newcomer). "Culturally"
(or "conventionally," if you wish) it seems like help-gnu-emacs is the
mailing list for "I just need help, potentially for basic questions,"
while emacs-devel is where the critical and extensive contributions and
discussions occur.
Given that, what if a user wants to share their tinkering (with or
without the intent of having it eventually merged into upstream Emacs)
with others to receive feedback? emacs-devel would be more appropriate
than help-gnu-emacs, but the user might feel that their tinkering is
out-of-place when beside discussions of e.g. the intricacies of the C
core and significant patches to well-known built-ins.
In any case, this was just my attempt at trying to understand Emanuel's
initial proposition. Eli Zaretskii mentioned the additional overhead of
managing another mailing list, so I tend to agree that we should keep
emacs-devel and help-gnu-emacs as is. But perhaps Emanuel can chime in
again.
--
With appreciation,
Kristoffer