Nick Dokos <ndo...@gmail.com> writes: > Adam Porter <a...@alphapapa.net> writes: > >> I'm not an expert on this package nor this situation, however, looking >> at the htmlize.el file shows: >> >> ;; Copyright (C) 1997-2003,2005,2006,2009,2011,2012,2014,2017,2018 >> >> So it would appear that the package has existed longer than either >> GitHub or Org. I'm guessing that its author moved its primary repo to >> GitHub after Org started using it. >> >> In hindsight, perhaps it would have been better to move htmlize into >> Emacs before adding it to Org proper. But many things are clearer in >> hindsight. >> >> Regardless of where it is hosted, htmlize.el is Free Software, and it's >> an optional addon to Org. We can encourage its author to add it to >> Emacs proper, or to ELPA. But surely it's not necessary to censor the >> mention of "GitHub" in the manual; it's simply a fact that GitHub exists >> and that htmlize.el is currently hosted there. It would seem >> unreasonable for the Org maintainers to have reacted to htmlize.el's >> moving to GitHub by removing htmlize.el support while it remains Free >> Software, yet that's the logical conclusion of this argument. >> > > I had exactly the same reaction.
Me too! > >> So please do not remove support for this package because of where its >> repo happens to be hosted at the moment. That would be a major >> regression, and it would not be in users' best interests. It would not >> be fair to remove a major feature used by thousands of users and demand >> that "someone" (since there is no one ultimately responsible) rewrite >> large parts of ox-html.el to fix it. It would at least seem fair for >> those insisting on the change to do the necessary work. >> > > I don't usually +1 replies but I wanted to chime in my agreement with > Adam here. Thanks for taking the time to put your (and my!) thoughts > into words. > > If Github is indeed the sticking point, why can't it (the htmlize > repo) be cloned on the same server as org-mode (possibly as its own > repo, possibly as a git submodule)? It's not a fast moving target: a > handful or two of commits per year. The doc can then avoid the Gihub > ref (although it does seem silly to pretend that Github does not > exist). I completely agree with Adam and Nick's take on this issue. Breaking HTML export by removing htmlize is going to have a huge negative impact on Org users and since the package is already free software what is the point? Regards, Bernt
