Subject: bug#69171: closed (Re: bug#69171: Moving packages out of core to ELPA)

From: [email-masked] (GNU bug Tracking System)
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2024 15:37:02 +0000

Your bug report

#69171: [JD Smith] Moving packages out of core to ELPA

which was filed against the elpa package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to [email-masked].

-- 
69171: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=69171
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact [email-masked] with problems

Subject: Re: bug#69171: Moving packages out of core to ELPA
From: Stefan Kangas <[email-masked]>
To: Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 07:35:19 -0800
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

Stefan Kangas <[email-masked]> writes:

> Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> Sounds good, I'll add it GNU ELPA.
>
> Thanks.
>
>> There remains the question about how to remove it from Emacs.
>
> I think we just move it to lisp/obsolete plus the additions to NEWS and
> maybe the header of that file.
>
> It's been discussed on emacs-devel starting here:
> https://lists.gnu.org/r/emacs-devel/2024-02/msg00570.html

That has now been done in Bug#71157.

I'm therefore closing this bug report.

Subject: [JD Smith] Moving packages out of core to ELPA
From: Stefan Kangas <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2024 12:47:59 -0500
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

Package: elpa

See the below request to add idlwave to ELPA.

JD, how should we add it?  Do you have a git repository where it is
being developed?  If yes, we could synch it from there.

-------------------- Start of forwarded message --------------------
From: JD Smith <[email-masked]>
Subject: Moving packages out of core to ELPA
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2024 09:40:19 -0500
To: emacs-devel <[email-masked]>

There was a recent discussion about which lisp/progmodes packages
belong in core.  A sentiment was expressed that useful languages with
non-negligible user bases should probably go in, and others should be
in ELPA.

I want to bring up a related point: it should be possible to retire
packages from core, once their relevance drops below a critical
threshold [1].

I am the former maintainer of the now mostly defunct IDLWAVE mode
(lisp/progmodes/idl*.el).  IDLWAVE was put in core about 20 years ago,
long before ELPA existed, by my predecessor Carsten Dominik (of
org-mode fame).  I'd advocate moving IDLWAVE to ELPA, for the
following reasons:

The proprietary IDL
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDL_(programming_language)> is a
language in rapid decline.  In my field (astrophysics), its use is now
relegated to older professionals who have not switched to Python (but
most of whom wish they had the time to do so).
IDL's holding company has changed approximately 5 times in the last 10
years, such that the link to its website on Wikipedia isn't even
correct.
None of the free IDL alternatives have really caught on.  IDL's costs
and licensing restrictions have gotten more onerous over the years.
IDL is also the "interface description language", confusing users of
that unrelated system.
IDL's file extension ".pro" is quite common, and in use for several
other file types, including Qt's UI build system
<https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/qmake-project-files.html> as well as
Yarn2/Prolog (which org babel plugin ob-prolog
<https://github.com/ljos/ob-prolog> supports).
Some of the best features in IDLWAVE (e.g. direct documentation
linking) required maintenance support from IDL's owners, support which
hasn't fully existed for almost a decade.
The version in core has diverged from the latest
<https://github.com/jdtsmith/idlwave> (from 7 years ago).

Judging by my email traffic on the topic, there are very few users of
IDLWAVE remaining.  Even I touch it only a few times a year.  No one
has stepped up to maintain it in the 7 years since I stepped aside.
IDL is still a powerful language and IDLWAVE itself has a great number
of features I sorely miss in other emacs programming modes.  It
deserves support in Emacs.  Just not, IMO, in core.

[1] Such a threshold may be hard to define, but here is one idea: if
the number of users who activate a mode on accident
<https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/qefx8e/til_idl_is_a_thing_and_emacs_has_it/>
is greater than the number who actively seek to do so, it may be time
to retire a mode.  My experience indicates IDLWAVE has likely passed
this threshold.