Re: [O] Bleeding edge in elpa

[T.F. Torrey]

Hello Aaron,

Aaron Ecay <address@hidden> writes:

>> If the goal is to have the latest and greatest version of Org available via
>> ELPA (for all the reasons some people use ELPA instead of git), there
>> are two obvious options:
>>
>> 1. Org could have a stable release every month or so.
>>
>> 2. The Org server could be configured to automatically package the
>> master version of Org every day, as the maint version is now.
>>
>> Option 1 is widely regarded as the best choice.  However, it requires a
>> lot of actual, repeated human effort.  As Debian repeatedly
>> demonstrates, this is very hard to do, even once.  If option 1 could be
>> done, it would already be done.
>>
>> Option 2 would be a one-time (mostly) human effort, and the daily work
>> would be automated.
>
> But what would not be automated is the actual human effort that goes into
> making a release: writing NEWS and documentation for new features, testing
> for regressions, generating the emacs Changelog files, merging changes
> from emacs trunk back into to org code base, merging org code into emacs
> trunk, ...  Someone still has to do all those things eventually.  Or not,
> and the quality of org as a software product suffers.

Refusing to make the git master version available through ELPA doesn't
help any of those things get done.  It simply denies the latest Org to
those unable or afraid of using git.

Of the things in your list, I think only the NEWS and Changelog are
absent from the master branch in git.  Lots of us happily use Org master
from git without them every day.  Do they really need to be done at
all?

If Emacs 25 is taking Org out of core, does the code still have to be
merged into the trunk?

If the manpower does not exist to support both a maint and a master
branch, maybe they should be merged.  Could that be done?

Still just trying to make it easier to spread the gospel of Org,
Terry
-- 
T.F. Torrey