Re: ELPA contributions?

[Artur Malabarba]

2015-10-13 10:35 GMT+01:00 Phillip Lord <address@hidden>:
>
> 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.

Perhaps. But still, people should not squash to elpa.git. It has
downsides with no real benefits (that I know of).

- If your package is part of elpa.git, then its commit messages should
be part of elpa.git's commit messages (even if the package is being
primarily developed somewhere else).
- The build-scripts can generate package change-logs from commit messages.
- If someone is trying to `git-blame' one of your package files,
having squashed is only going to complicate matters.

I've added some better instructions to the Readme, but there's still
much that needs to be done to it.

> > 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.

All agreed. Some packages are always going to prefer being primarily
on Github. But having a better bug-tracker here would make it so that
fewer packages feel obligated to be on Github. For let-alist, for
instance, I wanted to develop the package here directly, so I created
a github repo with no source just for the issue tracker..