Re: PL support

[João Távora]

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 6:41 PM Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> >> - 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.

What are the top 5 (3?) most worrisome violations of coding
convention by s.el?  I suppose namespacing is at the top of
that list, but what are the other ones, ranked and summarized,
if possible?  Aren't we willing to live with some of them, for a
while, especially if they are neatly packed inside a clearly
identified namespace?

João