Re: Test Alternative initialize scheme

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Nikolay Kudryavtsev <nikolay.kudryavtsev@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 00:15:31 +0300
> 
> The reason for their existence is that building a working config with 
> bells and whistles may take quite a lot of time and effort, depending on 
> required applications. And at some point there would be workflow 
> disagreements. The two major areas are keyboard bindings(vanilla, vim, 
> ergoemacs) and minibuffer completion(ivy, icicles, helm). Then there's 
> package management, I think there's almost as many package managers for 
> Emacs now, as there are for Unix. Init.el organization is another hotly 
> contested area, with different ideas like storing it in org-mode and 
> tangling.

>From my POV, the only issue with these "distributions" is that
whatever problems they try to solve, they don't seem to communicate
them back to the upstream project development, and don't try to
contribute their solutions to upstream.  They are completely separate
"cultures", which IMO is a pity, since I think quite a few of the
problems they bump into are unbeknownst to the project, and thus might
not be solved correctly, or maybe just worked around instead of
solving.  And if they do solve some problems, the rest of Emacs users
cannot benefit from those solutions.

The relationship between these distributions and upstream Emacs
development should IMO be a two-side street.  I don't feel that is
currently the situation.