On 3 November 2022 04:17:47 CET, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote: >[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] >[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] >[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > > > How about `checkout' instead of `repo'? `package-checkout' to check > > > out from the ELPA repo, and either `package-upstream-checkout' or > > > `package-dev-checkout' for the upstream repo. > > > As Stephan has pointed out that "-checkout" is misleading > >We are miscommunicating here, I think. > > since it > > sounds like a command that would just clone the repository > >Yes, exactly. That is what I propose for this command to do: just >check out that package's repo. > > without > > activating it as a package. > >Yes, exactly. This command should check out the package, and no more. > >After that, you may wish to load the code of that package, or arrange >for it to be loaded on other occasions in the future, or you may not. >We should provide easy ways to do those things if you want to, but we >shouldn't impose those things on you by default just because you >asked to see those sources in a repo. > In that case we are simply talking about different things. My intention, which is also a popular feature among users, is to provide the ability to fetch and activate a package directly from source. Getting rid of this feature would undermine the point of the branch. What I can do, as I had previously proposed is to, is provide a second command, package-vc-checkout that does what you propose. It would take a package and a directory as arguments.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4