Russell Adams <rlad...@adamsinfoserv.com> writes: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 07:36:00PM +0200, Bastien wrote: >> Hi Scott, >> > >> the main reason why 8.3 was not as "stable" as it should have been is >> that I've been releasing it too quickly, after having been inactive >> way too long. >> >> It's kind of a miracle that Org development could continue without an >> active "official" maintainer for so long, and we owe a lot to Nicolas >> and other contributors for this. > > Bastien, > > As a Org user since 2006 I've watched and appreciated how much time > and effort yourself and Carsten have put into maintainership. This > significant commitment brings about the following question: > > Is Org large enough that it would benefit from being broken into more > pieces? > > For instance a stable core that includes only the major mode itself, > which you continue to maintain. This defines the file syntax and > includes core features which require little to no external programs or > libraries. > > Then could you break out the exporters, babel, and many of the other > sub-features into "plugins" that could be maintained separately by > others, and they depend back to the core version? > > My impression has been that the core Org functionality has been stable > for quite a while, and the org ecosystem grows by leaps and bounds as > new users expand the incredibly flexible syntax to work for their use > case.
It's nice to have "batteries included". This is also the strength of programming languages such as python, emacs-lisp, and to a lesser extend R. One data point: I can absolutely not be bothered using anything that is not at least in contrib. Rasmus -- A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it
