Re: Adding use-package to core

[Payas Relekar]

Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> We could archive it after some grace period, say 3, 6, or N months.
>>>
>>> At the beginning of that period, we could add a comment to all open
>>> issues and pull requests, saying where to report the issue.  At the end,
>>> we could do it again.  Then we archive.
>>
>> And in the meantime someone will have to monitor the GitHub issues and
>> update debbugs?
>
> In this scenario, I think so, yes.  One way of doing it just to close
> any _new_ issues immediately, asking them to use bug-gnu-emacs instead.
> I'm already getting all the notifications as it is, and I'd be happy to
> do that for the duration.  (I'd expect a trickle rather than a storm.)

Agree, and thank you for picking this up!

> On the other hand, maybe it would be less confusing to just archive the
> repository and be done with it.  If I'm not mistaken, it would be hard
> to migrate all issues to debbugs automatically, since GitHub works with
> user names and not email addresses.  So this option probably means
> losing some bugs, and maybe frustrating some bug reporters.  Maybe it's
> worth it: I don't know.

I would be in favor of this one. Mostly because it reduces
administrative burden. Also, I expect any issues serious enough will get
re-reported on debbugs anyway, and considering use-package has been
around for a while, there shouldn't be too many of them.

> I guess ultimately what we choose to do depends how important it is for
> us to preserve existing feature requests and bug reports in a form where
> we can continue working on them (e.g. by closing fixed issues).
>
> BTW, it might be worth taking a look at Eglot on GitHub to see how João
> handled this: https://github.com/joaotavora/eglot

Eglot is still being maintained by João, while use-package cannot expect
such commitment from John. If Stefan or anyone is willing to volunteer,
we can continue addressing issues/PRs on both Github as well as mailing
list, but it must be a commitment at least until the repo is archived.

There is also the fact that use-package has fewer expected changes in
future while Eglot has long road of evolution ahead. It makes sense for
eglot to keep both avenues available for users/contributors, while
use-package does not have as much need.

--