Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com> writes: > John Wiegley <johnw@gnu.org> writes: > >>>>>>> Payas Relekar <relekarpayas@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> I would personally like to see the package in core if at all possible, and >>> John has also expressed interest in that. Personally I'd prefer if >>> development continues in core after upstreaming, but it is upto John to >>> decide. I know that Modus-themes and Org both are developed out of tree, and >>> only merged in when the package version is bumped. Which means history is >>> lost, but clearly that hasn't been a problem and maintainers of those >>> packages prefer it. >> >> I'm entirely in support of the code and its development moving directly into >> core. Whichever best supports the Emacs developers and the needs of the >> community, since it is more than likely that future work will be carried out >> by others. I'm ready to hand it off in whatever way is desired by the team >> here. > > IMHO, for that to make sense, someone capable would have to volunteer to > maintain it on our side. If we don't have such a volunteer, it makes > more sense to me to keep development external for now. > > If we see a need to move development fully into core in the future, we > can always do that, but the reverse is harder. I agree, a transitory stage where use-package is still maintained externally sounds like the safer bet for now. > (If we want to preserve history when making such a move at a later date, > we could just delete our existing copy of the file from emacs.git and > then merge the full git history, just as we did with eglot.el.) In that case, what is left is completing the .texi manual, or am I mistaken? After that, I suppose that placing the right files in the right places in emacs.git will be less that a days work.
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