Re: ELPA contributions?

[Phillip Lord]

Eric Abrahamsen <address@hidden> writes:
>>> All of this should really be better explained on the readme. I
>>> remember I felt a little lost the first time I was doing it. If anyone
>>> would like to document these steps a bit better I would be thoroughly
>>> grateful. 
>>
>> I really regret squashing: I think I only did it because of some vague
>> sense that it would be more hygienic. Fairly nonsensical, but I don't
>> think it's possible, or practical, to unsquash at this point. For the
>> sake of simplicity, I think it would be good if the README recommends
>> not squashing.

If I understand, a git subtree squash is not like a normal rebase; it
does actually know about the commits that were squashed, as opposed to
rewriting them like a rebase squash.


> Also, Stefan's original recommendation was to just develop the package
> in ELPA: no remote.
>
> I think this could be a more viable option if debbugs integrated with
> ELPA a bit better. Personally, I wanted Github a tiny bit for the fame
> and the glory, but mostly because of the issue tracking. Other people
> probably make more use of Github's functionality (Phil mentioned pull
> requests, etc),

For my own packages, I'd moved them from mercurial on google code to
github shortly before, so shifting the development to ELPA didn't seem
like a good way forward. For dash, it just reflects the reality -- it
was already developed on github and wasn't going to move.

> but in my case, if I got an automatic email anytime anyone reported an
> Emacs bug with "gnorb" in the package header...
>
> Hang on, back up. If `report-emacs-bug' prompted the user for a package
> (with completion), and then I was automatically emailed with any bug
> reports filed against my package(s) (where I'm in the Maintainer
> header), and then I could continue that back-and-forth via debbugs, most
> of the allure of Github would be gone for me, and I'd probably just do
> the development within ELPA.

All of that would help.

Phil