Re: PL support

[Stefan Monnier]

>> - It would not impose our own coding conventions and would hence happily
>>    accept `s.el`.
> Note: we most likely can ask s.el's author to better follow _some_ of our
> conventions, if that's what it takes to accept it for GNU ELPA.
> But renaming the package (with 400+ dependencies out there) would
>  be impractical.

The issue is not `s.el`, but any other package with comparable (tho not
necessarily identical) issues w.r.t coding convention.  I mention `s.el`
as an example of a package where the breakage of coding-convention seems
severe enough (contrary to my own judgment, FWIW) to disallow it into
GNU ELPA even though everyone agrees it is technically fine.


        Stefan