Closed lassik closed 3 years ago
I see that would work, but is there a benefit to doing it?
The filename and symbol prefixes would match the package name, which is the usual convention. The dylan-mode
package was added to Melpa early, back when they didn't yet do much in the way of code review, so it doesn't currently observe this convention.
I continue to advocate for the dylan
/dime
split as per MELPA conventions. Since most of our work is done, now would be a good time to send the requisite PRs to them.
This works for me.
Only tangentially related, it has occurred to me several times that this repo would be better named "dylan-emacs-support" or similar. No need to do that now though.
You could simply rename it to dylan-lang/emacs
. When you do a rename, GitHub keeps the old URLs working as redirects (both HTTP and Git URLs), so it's no big deal.
@housel Any opinion on the MELPA package splitting and repo renaming?
Sure, I'm fine with that.
@cgay Can you rename the repo? I can send the pull request to MELPA.
Done. I went with dylan-emacs-support
.
This is now done, dylan
and dime
packages are up on MELPA. Please try uninstalling dylan-mode
, installing the new packages, and open new issues for any problems you encounter (we made a lot of changes so there are sure to be a few).
For reference, the PR was https://github.com/melpa/melpa/pull/7483
Currently we have two sets of files:
dylan-*.el
anddime-*.el
. There seems to be a somewhat clean separation between Dime and the other Dylan stuff. The Dime stuff depends on the Dylan stuff, but the Dylan stuff can also be used standalone.In light of this division, I think we should split into two different Melpa packages:
dylan
anddime
, withdylan
as a dependency fordime
. Both package names are available so there is no conflict with existing packages.We can still keep both packages in the same git repo. A Melpa recipe can be written to only pick files matching a shell glob from a repo.