Re: [O] Stable releases

[Rasmus]

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
R.

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

Rasmus

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