Values and standards of ELPA

[Philip Kaludercic]

"Bozhidar Batsov" <bozhidar@batsov.dev> writes:

> The logview package is relatively popular and well written IMO. Yeah,
> it's an optional CIDER dependency, but it enhances a lot CIDER's log
> viewer, that's why I'm keen on having it here. If we want ELPA to
> become a viable alternative to 3rd party repos we can't be too picky
> when it comes to the standards for including something. 

But that is the crux of the matter; it is more than just a viable
"alternative", as it provides a vetted and curated selection of
packages.  I try to provide helpful reviews and outside-perspectives on
inclusion to ensure that this remains the case, and it would be great if
there were a way to repeat this later on, e.g. to request a manual
review before a package is released (which is another central advantage
of {Non,}GNU ELPA: Tagged releases ensure that packages on ELPA are
consciously packaged, decreasing the instability that tip-by-default
archives foster).

But specifically regarding "alternative"; We of course don't have the
means to estimate this, but I don't know of any major blockers to just
using GNU and NonGNU ELPA.  If there is something explicit we are
missing, then that would be important to discuss before reviewing
optional dependencies IMO.

>                                                         The author is
> not using ELPA, so his incentive to do extra work for the inclusion is
> little, if any.

Likewise, my incentive to review the code of a person who appears to be
actively hostile to anything I would comment on is also relatively low.