Please stop bundling third-party libraries about org-caldav

[dengste]

url-dav is not an external library but part of core Emacs. The bundled version is only for users of older Emacsen. All of this is explained in the README, by the way.

[dengste]

BTW, opening over 50 issues with essentially the same text could be considered spamming.

[tarsius]

Could you please consider that I am not doing that to, I don't know, trick people into giving me money or something. On the contrary I invest countless hours into cleaning up the Emacs ecosystem. It's not very exiting work and I don't get payed for doing it. Once in a while someone thanks me for doing it, but that's all I get in return. Also sometimes someone writes a comment like yours - fortunately that doesn't happen very often, still it does hurt.

Back to the technical aspect: url-dav being a built-in package doesn't make it less important to prevent shadowing the upstream (here GNU Emacs) version. One might argue that it is even more important in this case. It is nice of you that you do something for the benefit of people using older Emacsen but the point I was trying to get across is that it actually does more harm than good.

So my suggestion is still that you protect users of newer Emacsen from accidentally shadowing the built-in library with the version bundled with your package (which might be outdated, if it is not now it is very likely it will be at some point in the future).

[dengste]

This is a github repository with some Emacs code in a state which you could consider 'alpha'. It is not meant to be some official package and it is also not meant to be packaged by someone else. In fact, this code will probably end up in Org contrib, but only when it is sufficiently stable. This repository will then be deleted.
I'm sorry that you're hurt, but nowhere did I imply you'd do this out of mischief. But still, I do think that posting this rather lengthy issue to over 50 github repositories is not the way to go about this.

[tarsius]

Okay I will remove it from the mirror then.

Apology accepted, I am glad you did not mean it the way I received it. I felt bad because I didn't expect my effort to be considered spamming. I do understand why that perception isn't complete non-sense, still you could probably have said it in a nicer way. What put me off was probably that the reply was very short (and given the information I had at that time, missed the point) but at the same time you put some effort into noticing that I have opened 50 such issues.

Anyways, what else could I do? There are 50 repositories each having a very similar issue. How should I get these issues fixed without pointing them out to the maintainers? Should I write a different text for each of the opened issues? Should I use a generic but much shorter text (In which case some people would not understand it, and I would have to explain it over and over again)? Should I write Emails so that they don't notice that they are not the only one getting this message? Or should I decide that because greater N packages are affected there is nothing that can be done about it, without becoming a spammer?

I really can't think of a better way of doing it, than what I did.

[tarsius]

Oh, and I am sorry too.

[dengste]

I agree that shipping libraries which might shadow newer versions is a bad thing, and if I'd actually /release/ org-caldav, I'd never put url-dav.el in a tar.gz or similar. Likewise if I'd put the code up on GNU ELPA, MELPA or some other package repository. So we are in agreement here.
However, I think upstream repositories are (usually) a different thing, and I wonder why you think you have to solve this issue at that high level? Maybe I'm not a typical user, but when I deliberately choose to clone code from an upstream repository, I usually do this to follow its development, report bugs and, most importantly, I pull regularly. This is very different from installing a tar.gz, where I expect the code to run fine for years to come (yes, I'm exaggerating, but not much).
I was just confused to get this issue because I don't consider this repository to be a "package", but a very volatile thing with code-in-progress, and it took me a while to understand what you mean, plus I have a nasty cold and hence am a bit cranky today...

[dengste]

Anyway, I removed url-dav now. This was something I had to do eventually anyway, so why not now? ;-)

[tarsius]

Thanks a lot! Have a nice one.