Hi both of you, > > in the long run I could use both, but ATM the most straightforward way > > for me would be to package from a git tag, especially if I could use > > git archive to get a orig.tar.gz.
In this case, both the current stable release tags, as well as the hopefully to be done elpa release tags can be used. I agree that this would be good. > > Apart from packaging, I think that AUCTeX users would benefit from > > having clearly marked stable releases. What about using some branching Well, I think this is what is happening by now, with release balls and tags in git. It is more about the additional releases to elpa and how they are reflected into stable releases, or whatever stable releases will be. > > git workflow like using the master branch to track stable releases and a > > next branch to develop new features until they are deemed stable enough > > to be included in master? > > I'm not sure this workflow would work for a program with few people Here I agree with Mose, I am doing most TeX packaging practically alone, and I prefer one master that has all the development, and branches for stable and oldstable. Combining what you two said, it seems that the easiest way forward for you (upstream) and not too disturbing for downstream to stop doing whatever "tarball releases" you are doing, and we consider the elpa releases as "the releases" which are properly tagged in git, and people can build from there, or get the tarballs from the elpa repository. WDYT? Norbert -- PREINING Norbert http://www.preining.info Accelia Inc. + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Developer GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13 _______________________________________________ auctex mailing list auctex@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex