Re: req-package

[Alexander Shukaev]

>>> I'm not sure about pull requesting to use package, because its author
>>> wanted to keep use package simple, last time I talked to him.
>
>> Maybe we could try to involve him into this discussion once again as your
>> initial feature with dependency/order management and now this one would
>> absolutely blow away the plain naked `use-package'. As I said before, plain
>> `use-package' is just sugar and convenience rather than a "smart" tool for
>> package management.
>
> I believe there are ways we can integrate the development, while allow the
> feature work to proceed separately. This is partly why I re-designed
> use-package in 2.0: so new functionality would not require maintenance (by me)
> in core, since others rely on features that I never use, and hence would never
> test.

Yes, indeed, I totally understand this rationale.  The 2.0 is very
well redesigned in terms of extensibility; thanks a lot for your
effort.  Still, I believe it would be to the benefit of the majority
to give `req-package' a shot and seek to add it as an optional
functionality to `use-package' while relying on the existing 2.0
framework.

> So I'd love to examine whether req-package and use-package can be integrated,
> such that we each work on our respective parts, while users can benefit from
> both.

That's wonderful!

By the way, the issue [http://github.com/edvorg/req-package/issues/18]
corresponding to this thread has been updated.  Feel free to join the
discussion.

Regards,
Alexander