Hi Tassilo, Tassilo Horn <t...@gnu.org> writes:
> I've created a "main" branch (split off externals/auctex) and adjusted > it such that it should be buildable on elpa and the mere act of changing > the Version number in auctex.el in a commit would trigger a new ELPA > release. And every other commit would at least trigger a new release on > ELPA-devel. Many thanks for working on this (and to Stefan as well). > So basically, we should decide now if we switch to going ELPA-only in > which case we'd not use master anymore but develop directly in main. > (I'd be in favour of it, obviously.) > > We could also keep master as our development branch and still use the > new "main" branch (which I would probably rename to "elpa" in that case) > for elpa and turn on auto-sync. It would be a bit less automatic: we'd > need to keep merging from master to the "main" / "elpa" regularly and > increment the Version manually for releases. But it's still better than > the status quo (less committed generated files; better Version > determination). I was thinking about this too and my vote is to go with option 2 (i.e., not your favorite ;-). I think it would make sense to have a sort of "staging area" where we can install code which might break or have other problems. Syncing it directly to ELPA-DEVEL and letting people install it might end in too much trouble for the brave users. Merging into "branch-name-tbd" shouldn't be a big deal then, I can do it, if we need a volunteer. And yes, it will be much better than what we have right now. Reg. dropping tarball-release and for me to recap: We, or more precisely Mosè doesn't make any releases and distro-packagers should pick up the files from the ELPA release and work with that? Maybe this is a topic for another thread. Best, Arash