search

YoungFrog / auto-answer

GNU General Public License v3.0
11 stars 3 forks source link

MELPA #2

Open firmart opened 3 years ago

firmart commented 3 years ago

Would you mind to put this package on MELPA? I believe that it is a useful package as I answered multiple questions referencing it: see this, this and recently this question.

It would probably require some tiny modifications like

See melpa/CONTRIBUTING.org.

YoungFrog commented 3 years ago

Thanks for suggesting this. https://github.com/melpa/melpa/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.org mentions "Avoid change logs and readmes" -- so I guess I will not add one?

Is 891e19bef76dddb0137780188215f40ae7193980 sufficient?

firmart commented 3 years ago

Thanks to working on this.

Thanks for suggesting this. https://github.com/melpa/melpa/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.org mentions "Avoid change logs and readmes" -- so I guess I will not add one? I just read the guidelines. It seems that they suggest (undirectly) to not include a README in the MELPA recipient as it would be installed in a place that nobody would pay attention. That's a fair point. But that doesn't prevent you to provide a README that people could read on Github. In fact every MELPA packages I use do have a README.

If I understand correctly the :files field of MELPA recipes: https://github.com/melpa/melpa/blob/master/README.md#recipe-format, it seems that only (useful) elisp files will be included by default anyway.

That being said, I'm not an expert on the matter as till now I didn't submit any package on MELPA. I would suggest going ahead on the submit process, they would review it.

Is 891e19bef76dddb0137780188215f40ae7193980 sufficient?

-- You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/YoungFrog/auto-answer/issues/2#issuecomment-886942453