[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [O] Stable releases

From: Rasmus
Subject: Re: [O] Stable releases
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 22:00:48 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.130014 (Ma Gnus v0.14) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Russell Adams <address@hidden> writes:

> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 07:36:00PM +0200, Bastien wrote:
>> Hi Scott,
>> the main reason why 8.3 was not as "stable" as it should have been is
>> that I've been releasing it too quickly, after having been inactive
>> way too long.
>> It's kind of a miracle that Org development could continue without an
>> active "official" maintainer for so long, and we owe a lot to Nicolas
>> and other contributors for this.
> Bastien,
> As a Org user since 2006 I've watched and appreciated how much time
> and effort yourself and Carsten have put into maintainership. This
> significant commitment brings about the following question:
> Is Org large enough that it would benefit from being broken into more
> pieces?
> For instance a stable core that includes only the major mode itself,
> which you continue to maintain. This defines the file syntax and
> includes core features which require little to no external programs or
> libraries.
> Then could you break out the exporters, babel, and many of the other
> sub-features into "plugins" that could be maintained separately by
> others, and they depend back to the core version?
> My impression has been that the core Org functionality has been stable
> for quite a while, and the org ecosystem grows by leaps and bounds as
> new users expand the incredibly flexible syntax to work for their use
> case.

It's nice to have "batteries included".  This is also the strength of
programming languages such as python, emacs-lisp, and to a lesser extend

One data point: I can absolutely not be bothered using anything that is
not at least in contrib.


A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it

reply via email to

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