emacs-orgmode
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] [RFC] Move ox-koma-letter into core?


From: Bastien
Subject: Re: [O] [RFC] Move ox-koma-letter into core?
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 15:20:35 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)

Achim Gratz <address@hidden> writes:

> The first question is what do we want contrib to be?  

So let's start with this one.

contrib/ *was* a staging area for stuff that were meant to go into
core at some point---i.e. when they get mature enough and when the
copyright assignments are sorted out.

For most libraries, contrib/ *is not* a staging area anymore.

So for now, having stuff in contrib/ means something like

  "These libraries are contributed by Org users and you can get their
  latest version by downloading the .tar.gz, the .zip, by cloning Org
  repo or by install org-plus-contrib from Org ELPA."

The core idea is that stuff from contrib get more love than random
github Org libraries: Org maintainers do fix stuff in there from time
to time (compiler warnings, etc.)

I think:

1) this core idea is fine, but I'm for applying it to Org ELPA instead
   of the Org contrib/ directory.

2) it would be cleaner if org-in-emacs and org-repo would be the same.

My point of view is that of the users, who get easily lost in those
distinctions. 


> If it's a staging
> area for things that are not-quite-ready yet, then these things should
> either be removed if they aren't getting finished or moved into core
> when they are.  Plus, since maint goes to Emacs, but master is not, it
> should be in master as soon as the copyright questions are resolved.

It is *not* a staging area only.

> If it's becoming a dump of stuff that will never make it into core
> because it isn't acceptable for Emacs proper for whatever reason, then
> I'd reason that it should be removed as well, independently of whether
> it's kept alive outside of Org or not.

I'm against dumping not-for-core libraries.

And that precisely because it's good to have libraries close to
Org's list/devs that I'd prefer the Org ELPA solution.

>> If so, we would need some Git guru (Achim?) to help with filtering
>> the Org repo, and I could help with setting up the Org ELPA packages.
>
> If you are suggesting to remove the history of contrib from Org's repo,
> then I'm against it.  

Why?

-- 
 Bastien



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]