John Wiegley writes: >>>>>> "DE" == David Engster <d...@randomsample.de> writes: > > DE> It is a mistake because you are creating more moving targets and bring > DE> them together very late in the release process. This reduces the amount of > DE> testing that is done for those packages, so bugs will be noticed later and > DE> the quality of the relases suffer. It moves even more work into the > DE> RC-phase, which is already crowded and where people who can fix those bugs > DE> might not be readily available. It removes those packages from Emacs CI, > DE> so that breakages due to changes in core are not immediately noticed, and > DE> often times they have to be fixed not by those who created the breakage, > DE> but by those who notice them. > > These are issues to be fixed in the way ELPA integrates with our development > process. I recognize today's ELPA may have these drawbacks, but I believe they > can be fixed.
This really has not much to do with how ELPA works. My points above are about the underlying concept you are proposing: moving packages out of Emacs core and hence removing them from current Emacs development, but still bundling them with the release. It's a have-and-eat-cake concept. > We're moving toward a future where Emacs.git will represent "core Emacs", and > only contain what core needs (plus a few historical bits, I'm sure). There > should be no argument for keeping a project in core just to gain auxiliary > benefits. Of the points I raise above, which fall under "just to gain auxiliary benefits"? I'm honestly confused. I'm specifically talking about the quality of the Emacs relases. Also, I currently have no idea how to continue with CEDET, as the future where development should happen is unclear, and I get the feeling we're just waisting our time with the ongoing merge. -David